Tariffs - No Political Opinions Please

[waynezo]

What can Congress or The Courts do to remove Tariff powers from the executive branch? I thought Tariffs were supposed to be a power of Congress. I am guessing a veto proof bill would have to pass. What are the mechanics required?

 

[Midpack]

There is no way politics won’t enter into this. The Senate just passed a related bill that’s DOA. The “mechanics” are suspended at the moment…

I’ve been on several other forums that allow politics, and it always gets ugly and ultimately pointless nowadays - no one changes their mind anyway, based on ‘the facts one chooses.’ I support the Mods here who nip those discussions in the bud. The OP can easily find other forums for politics…

 

[FLSUnFIRE]

Is this like Beetlejuice? Porky, Porky, Por.....

Yeah, this won't last long. Some threads I thought were really good and respectful (maybe I never saw deleted posts) were shut down much to my disappointment; still would rather have aggressive moderation than lose this community to political sniping.

 

[FLSUnFIRE]

My thoughts, not specific to tariffs, is that I'd like to see the balance of power in DC shift away from the executive branch (regardless of who is in charge) and be balanced by the legislature/judiciary and have both of them fulfill their rolls (Congress representing their constituents over their party and the judiciary ruling in as impartial manner as possible). Wild swings in policy every few years and the increasing polarity between the two parties is not good for the US or the world.

 

[Trailwalker]

Treading carefully, this is a recent and lengthy Library of Congress report on congressional and presidential authority to impose tariffs. Also, how courts have ruled on the matter. It makes for informative if not light reading.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48435

 

[Aerides]

The mechanics are easily found via reading up on how govt works (yes, congress has the power, and yes, they have the choice to exercise it or not).

But the mechanics must be understood within the context of exactly who would be doing the things, and whether they feel the need to exercise power (if congress wanted to act differently) or not (if congress doesn't mind things as they are now).

If you were to come up and tickle me, and I like you, and I like it, I laugh. If those things are not true, I poke you in the eye.

 

[donheff]

I do not mean this to be political, just factual. As Midpack notes, the Senate voted to stop the tariffs in Canada by declaring there is no emergency. Under the National Emergencies Act (which permits the President to unilaterally impose tariffs) if the House now votes the same way, no emergency and no tariffs. Under the Act, Congress can introduce a "privileged resolution to terminate the order" which must be brought to the House floor within 15 days. That would mean the Speaker cannot prevent a vote. As in the Senate, enough members of both parties in the House would be expected to revoke - no more tariffs.

Unfortunately, the GOP slipped a rule into the continuing resolution to fund the Government declaring that the remainder of days in the first session of the 119th Congress do not qualify as calendar days. Thus the 15 days can never pass so no one can force a vote. It seems insane but that's our Congress.

 

[Flieger]

I agree that changes need to be made, but I am concerned.

We've already had (and maybe are again) all branches of the government ignore existing laws as they choose. It's my belief that a law is a law, and you enforce it until congress changes it. Not that the judiciary or enforcement decides "I won't enforce these laws, just these other laws". So I am not sure we actually have the checks and balances at the moment that we perceive we have. JMHO.

Flieger

 

[wmc1000]

Don't know how our checks and balances of the branches don't apply to this area.

 

[Flieger]

Don't know how our checks and balances of the branches don't apply to this area.

I think they are supposed to, I just am not sure they are working (for any branch).

Flieger

 

[EastWest Gal]

Checks and balances only work when the enforcement arm of the government (the Executive Branch, in particular, the DOJ) doesn't ignore statutory law and the Constitution, and doesn't ignore judicial decisions. That doesn't seem to be happening.

 

[Zathras]

Don't know how our checks and balances of the branches don't apply to this area.

@donheff posted a great top level description of it.

If it is an emergency, the President can create tariffs. I don’t necessarily believe that exception is bad.
However, the current administration seems to be going well beyond what was intended.

Congress can cancel these tariffs, but congress acts more slowly than executive orders can be written.

 

[Flieger]

Checks and balances only work when the enforcement arm of the government (the Executive Branch, in particular, the DOJ) doesn't ignore statutory law and the Constitution, and doesn't ignore judicial decisions. That doesn't seem to be happening.

That hasn't happened for quite some time...

Flieger

 

[anethum]

It does not work at all. This administration has fired Inspectors General, installed an A.G. who is openly political, and is punishing law firms which have represented people or entities who have opposed the president. What we are seeing is unprecedented in the USA.