621–630 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can be and are. The USA had tariffs on many products prior to Trump.
I think GPs point was that Tariffs are legitimate as a practice and that some people have been led to believe that they shouldn't exist at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the opinions. Both are pretty reasonable. I think the dissent has a good point that a plain language interpretation of the term "regulate imports" would seem to include tariffs. The bigger issue I think is that that statute exists in the first place. "Emergency powers" that a president can grant himself just by "declaring an emergency" on any pretense with no checks or balances is a stupid idea.
Only if you ignore the explicit grant to Congress in Article 1 Section 8... You're trying to argue an implicit grant somehow trumps an explicit grant. > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C1-1-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump govt will find another way to circumvent this and keep the tariff. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/02/cnbc-daily-open-trump-admini...
You can't get around the Supreme Court. Full stop. They can try, fail, and declare victory but they cannot find another way. They would literally be right back in the courts fighting their own consequences and punishment.
Am I understanding this right? 1) US customer pays huge import tax on imported goods in the form of higher prices. 2) Seller sends the collected tax to the US government 3) US government will refund all/most of that tax back to the seller after this ruling 4) Seller gets to keep the returned tax money as pure profit (no refund to customer)
Seller wasn’t involved in the tariffs. Rather the importer paid them, etc.
Strictly speaking it depends on the Incoterms agreed upon by the seller and buyer[1]. If the Incoterms are DDP, then the seller should pay import duties and taxes and as such is involved.
Of course sellers are typically trying to run a business, so they'll bake the taxes and import duties into the sales price. So effectively the buyer ends up paying for it, just indirectly.
This was relevant when the tariffs were introduced, as sellers with DDP goods in transit had committed to a sales price which included any tariffs and would have to swallow the extra costs when they got the bill from the freight forwarder.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incoterms#Allocations_of_risks...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a legitimate tax. That's why it taxed the economy much worse than a legitimate President would do.
maybe i lean too much in one direction, but what is a "legitimate tax"? Once again, count on hn for the downvotes. Yep, those shall not speak of downvotes, or taxation.
For instance complaining about downvotes always draws more as does collectively insulting the community you are participating in.
As to the original question the problem is that it suggests confusion on a basic topic that was decided here centuries ago and taught in elementary school. If someone said what even is addition in an adult forum would you teach them addition or would you assume that they actually know addition and are arguing in bad faith because they feel math really ought to work differently?
Also when you can divide a particular topic into clearly delineated camps appearing to disagree or question the basic premises that one camp holds is oft taken for disagreement and alignment with the opposing camp even when you are just debating a side issue and may in fact be mostly or entirely aligned with the people who feel like you are opposed to them. This shortcut as far as identifying motive and perspective can misfire but it's often correct and "just asking questions" is often underhanded opposition.
Lastly a legitimate tax is one that is passed by Congress in the normal fashion and not overturned by the courts.
The actual decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf
Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. ... But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-orders-temporary-1...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think at some point america would get sick of having a billionaire gang of thieves in charge. Trump just gave himself a $10 billion dollar slush fund from taxpayers. Who stopped him? No one. This amount of money will buy you one great den. Noem wants luxury jets from the taxpayer. So. Much. Winning.
America is pretty sick of both parties. Had the Democrats ran a half decent candidate, they could easily have won. But they're just not capable of doing that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fully agree, but that's what happens when you keep piling laws on top of laws on top of laws and never go back and refactor. If I recall correctly, the case hinged on some vague wording in a semi-obscure law passed back in 1977.
The whole legal apparatus of the US doesn't want to hear that but your laws suck. They're flawed because of the political system borne of compromise with parties incapable of whipping their members to just vote in favour of a law they don't fully agree with.