The majority took a tortured, twisted interpretation of the IEEPA to come to its decision. The court said that since the IEEPA did not use the precise word tariff, or a similar word, that the law could not be interpreted to include them.


The IEEPA grants the president authority to "regulate … importation … of … any property” under specified conditions. In an amicus curiae brief filed by America First Legal and Coalition for a Prosperous America, which used similar reasoning to the dissent, the attorneys noted that in United States v. Yoshida Int’l, Inc., a previous version of the U.S. Court of International Trade held that the President was authorized to "impos[e] an import duty surcharge” because "impos[ing] duties can be to ‘regulate’” the importation of the items on which duties are imposed.

In Regan v. Wald, the Supreme Court "gave the President ‘essentially the same’ powers,” the brief said. The attorneys went over multiple Supreme Court decisions where the court said the President couldn’t be limited to certain monetary methods. In Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., the nation’s highest court held, "[L]imiting the President to the use of quotas would effectively and artificially prohibit him from directly dealing with some of the very problems against which [the statute] is directed.”

The brief concluded, "he Supreme Court has held that ‘adjusting imports’ allows for charges like tariffs and that ‘adjusting’ means the same as ‘regulating,’ and IEEPA authorizes ‘regulating imports.’ Taken together, that means IEEPA authorizes tariffs, too.

So if one aspect of any law or authorization is not mentioned directly that means it is not legal? Why didn't they use that reasoning in, say, Roe v. Wade. The majority opinion in Roe spoke heavily of "penumbra" and assumed rights in the Constitution that were not expressly stated. The same was done with Oberkfell, the decision imposing homosexual "marriage" on America. There is nothing specifically in the Constitution authorizing either of these things yet here we have had both.

I thought Liberals love a "living Constitution"! They always want it to be a base, a floor that they start from to impose their will. Now they are strict constructionists when it suits their purposes - even when the law is quite clear and multiple court decisiions have upheld the President's right to impose tariffs.

The imposition of tariffs are sheltered under one big honking penumbra, the biggest penumbra you ever saw. It's bigger than the one hanging over Joe Biden's head.

And almost every President has imposed tariffs at some point in their presidency, or increased them at any rate. And since the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934 Presidents have pretty much had carte blanche to do it.

These judges know they will be overturned; they just want to be on record doing their duty as Democrats to oppose Trump.

That is not the job of a judge. A judge is suppposed to rule on the law, not on what his peeps want. But then, Democrats don't appoint judges, they appoint activists dressed in black.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 538 words, total size 4 kb.