The oral argument yesterday on the Trump tariffs was fascinating as justices struggled with the knotty question of whether a president has the sweeping authority claimed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The justices were skeptical and uncomfortable with the claim of authority, and the odds still favored the challengers. However, there is a real chance of a fractured decision that could still produce an effective win for the Administration.
THE COUNSEL
First, the counsel. I was highly impressed by the performance of Solicitor General John Sauer, who did a brilliant job in weaving historical and precedential arguments in favor of the tariffs. He had a tough case and at times a tough audience, but maintained a coherent and consistent position.
Many were surprised that the challengers selected the liberal firebrand Neil Katyal for counsel on the other side. Kavanaugh even made a quip about the incongruity of Katyal arguing for issues like non-delegation. Katyal struggled at points and Justice Amy Coney Barrett bashed him once for seemingly flipping his position in oral argument. However, Katyal made the key points against the claim of statutory and constitutional authority.
Overall, the Administration faced worrisome moments in the argument, with Chief Justice John Roberts repeatedly referring to tariffs as a clear “tax” and Justice Neil Gorsuch repeatedly raising the “major questions doctrine.” Neither works well for the Administration. If this is a tax, it is more likely viewed as a usurpation of Congress’s inherent tax authority.
THE HEAD COUNT
However, the head counting becomes more difficult as you comb through the specific questions of the justices.
We begin with the clear votes in favor of the challengers by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. Indeed, at times, both justices seemed to take on the role of counsel in clarifying the confusion left by the challengers and directing them back to what they viewed as more solid ground.
Justice Kagan, as usual, was more circumspect, but still clearly leaning against the Administration.
That leaves two more votes to reject the tariffs.
The most obvious candidate would be Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who hit Sauer hard with questions on the largely unprecedented scope of the Trump tariffs. Much of this turned on the meaning of the terms “regulate importation” in IEEPA. Barrett asked pointedly: “Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase, together with ‘regulate importation,’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?”
Sauer stressed that a predecessor law was used in this manner, but Barrett repeatedly returned and was clearly not satisfied. At one point, Sotomayor (prematurally in my view) snapped at Sauer and said “just answer the justice’s question.”
I think the real question for the Supreme Court in this case is whether they believe the Constitution is an economic suicide pact, or not.
Katyal struggled at points and Justice Amy Coney Barrett bashed him once for seemingly flipping his position in oral argument.
If you want to understand ACB’s thinking as a Justice, read her recently published book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution. It is well written, not steeped in legal minutiae, she possesses deep knowledge of the creation of our nation, particularly the Miracle at Philadelphia (Constitutional Convention), the thinking of the Founding Fathers as learned men and women (Abigail Adams, wife and advisor of John Adams, is her hero and gets her own chapter), references and quotes a litany of historical SCOTUS Justices dating back to John Marshall. She wrote little of herself, unlike Ketanji Jackson Brown in her self-deification memoir, and overall left an impression that she has the legal chops that most who criticize her will never possess.
Count on ACB to rule as the Constitution is written. Scalia is shining down his smile on her from Heaven.
Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/691090/listening-to-the-law-by-amy-coney-barrett/
free sample here but buy the book if the sample piques your curiosity and support her sales.
Estovir says “If you want to understand ACB’s thinking as a Justice, read her recently published book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.”
That book was published before or after she wrote the SCOTUS ruling last year, where she ruled that Biden contracting out censorship of First Amendment Free Speech of newspapers, journalists, politicians, bloggers, etc to entities like Facebook, Twitter, etc, further empowered by putting Administration officials into those censors to guide the censorship, was constitutional.
She ruled that the states suing the Biden Administration over their censorship by that means lacked standing to bring their case to even be heard by her and the other Justices on SCOTUS – just as SCOTUS in 2020/2021 refused to allow states, groups or individuals to have standing to hear their election concerns before and after the 2020 election. Do you notice a trend from ACB?
“Count on ACB to rule as the Constitution is written. Scalia is shining down his smile on her from Heaven.”
Are you REALLY sure that Scalia was smiling down on her from Heaven? Either after seeing that decision, or even more so now that all of the hidden communications from Biden’s Oval Office puppeteers to their commercial censors of Trump, Republican Senators and Congressmen, doctors, etc, are open for all to see?
MURTHY, SURGEON GENERAL, ET AL. v. MISSOURI ET AL.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
It’s risky business raising anyone to godlike status, whether it’s Obama, Trump, or Justice Amy Comey Barrett, whether or not she’s also a devout Catholic (so are Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, apparently).
A strict Constitutionalist or Contextualist she is not. If you must find a currently serving Justice that you want to put unquestioning faith in, try Justice Thomas instead.
Don’t leave Andrew Cuomo off your list of those devout.
I was reading an article on an interview with Professor Dershowitz’s comments on the oral presentations. He questioned why the government did not present the case that this was part of his “constitutional authority and foreign policy powers”. So since I am not a lawyer or the arguably offensive anonymous I have a question.
Do they only go on what was presented to them in the oral arguments? Will the court in their deliberations consider constitutional powers that were not presented in oral arguments?
I believe at least one if not two have made their decision prior to oral arguments. What about the others? Will they do the research and consider constitutional powers?
In the interview he mentioned that the govt. could go back on the constitutional grounds but that it would take a long time.
Another issue raised was that congress could fix it. Yea try to get anything passed in this congress or any congress that is not at the 60 vote threshold in the senate to pass anything due to their hatred especially of Trump.
Good questions, longgreyhair. For the record, I’m not a lawyer either. Here’s my understanding.
Court’s review is normally confined to the record — meaning the arguments and issues raised in the briefs and oral presentations. The justices can’t independently “research” new constitutional theories or invent arguments that the parties didn’t preserve, though they can ask counsel about broader constitutional implications during oral argument.
Dershowitz is right that the government could have defended the tariffs on the President’s independent constitutional authority over foreign affairs, but that would require re-framing the case and possibly re-briefing. The justices can take note of that theory but can’t build a decision around it if it wasn’t argued.
So this case may end up highlighting both gaps — in the 1977 IEEPA statute and in Congress’s willingness to modernize it. You’re right, gridlock makes reform hard, but that’s where constitutional discipline should matter most: the Court interprets, the Executive enforces, and Congress fixes the laws that no longer fit modern realities.
Right on
What was presented is considered. Some are aware of the powers you suggest and if they wanted that included they’d have brought it in via questioning in some way. They didn’t.
If the tariffs get repealed imagine how weak our country will appear on the world stage? Trump has restored the idea of strength in the US and is getting trade deals done so to do this now would be really damaging – and the GOP has to make sure the American public understands the Democrats dont care about us – only that they prevent Trump from getting major victories since it damages their party.
Weak? No. It will show how stupid our current President is. It falls on him if they rule his tariffs illegal. Because he thinks other countries pay the tariffs not US companies. He thinks he’s punishing other countries by imposing a hefty tax on US companies and the record revenue is basically revenue from a tax unilaterally imposed by the President.
This video captures weak minds, stupidity and celebration of self-destruction all rolled into one. You should have told us you could clap, sing and dance at the same time. We might have cut you some slack.
🤣
Yeah, the trade unions. Uh huh. Mandani in the trunk.
Stupid, as in, get reelected? Ever been president?
It does not fall on him, rather the MAGA voters., who voted for him and support him. I’m not a rep., all for tariffs.
Tariffs are not a tax on companies, its a cost of doing business, COG, and not categorized as a tax per GAAP.
Correct! But that has no bearing on SCOTUS.
If as you claim Tarrifs are such a bad idea – and if as you claim they punish domestic companies – then why is it that before Trump pretty much every country in the world had massively higher tarriffs than the US ?
Is every single other foreign leader int he world stupid ?
ALL Taxes of every kind every where are ultimately paid for by CONSUMERS.
While Tarriffs are NOT the optimal form of taxation – sales taxes are the lest economically damaging form of taxation – because they are the most direct and efficient. Tarriffs are a close 2nd. Taxes on income are a poor means to fund govenrment taxes on investment are even worse and taxes on property are the worst form of taxation.
Regardless the money to fund govenrment must come from somewhere – of the available choices – Tarriffs are better than most of the ways that we use. And that is one of the many reasons the rest of the world has much higher tarriffs than the US.
As to whether americans or foreigners will pay the cost of the tarriffs – that is not so simple as you claim.
ALL taxes reduce consumption and change peoples consumption choices. Trump’s tarriffs leave foreign countries dependent on US trade with the choice of seeing their exports drop – in the case of those nations dependent on trade with the US – seeing their entire economy tank or subsidizing the tarriffed goods.
I purchase a fair amount of things from markets in china. Prices have stayed the same or even dropped.
One reason is that china desperately needs sales to US markets, but another is that unlike most of the west – China was and still is experiencing significant deflation. China has economic conditions right now similar to the US at the collapse of the housing bubble – EXCEPT far larger. China has a $16T housing bubble. They also have massive amounts of unperforming government investment that was funded by massive amounts of debt. This combined with a declining and aging population is a recipe for disaster.
Regardless, foreign countries have two choices – allow US consumers to foot the bill for tarriffs and see demand drop in the short run and production move to the US in the long run or to subsidize tarriffed goods.
A decline in the importation of foreign goods will be unpleasant for americans in the short run, But it will be more harmful to the world in both the long and the short run.
Countries are making deals – because the longer the tarriffs last the more structural changes in where goods are produced occur.
John Say,
“ If as you claim Tarrifs are such a bad idea – and if as you claim they punish domestic companies – then why is it that before Trump pretty much every country in the world had massively higher tarriffs than the US ?”
It’s clear you don’t understand how tariffs work and why they are imposed. Other countries did not have massively higher tariffs than ours. SOME specific industries do have high tariffs to protect their markets. That has been the norm for years. Trump thinks tariffs are taxes on other countries and THEY pay them, not us. You know that is wrong.
“ Regardless the money to fund govenrment must come from somewhere – of the available choices – Tarriffs are better than most of the ways that we use. “
Tariffs are taxes on US companies. You as a libertarian would be against raising taxes on companies and the wealthy, yet her we have you seemingly supporting a massive tax on US companies arbitrarily imposed by the President. Tariffs are ultmately paid by they consumers when companies pass on the cost.
Right now the majority of companies have been eating the cost of tariffs and relying on their pre-tariff inventory to keep consumer prices from reflecting the effect of the tariffs. That is becoming less and less effecfive as those stockpiles and the pain of the higher costs starts to hurt companies. When they start to pass off those tariff costs on to comsumers with greater frequency and cost It will still be a tax on US citizens imposed arbitrarily by one person, the President. That is not sustainable.
If SCOTUS rules against Trump. Congress will have to figure out how to reimburse all those billions to companies for the illegal tariffs. That will not mean more revenue for the treasury. It will mean massive new deficits and inflation.
“ One reason is that china desperately needs sales to US markets, but another is that unlike most of the west – China was and still is experiencing significant deflation. China has economic conditions right now similar to the US at the collapse of the housing bubble – EXCEPT far larger.‘
Nope. China is in a much better position to weather the economic impact of the tariffs. They don’t have a housing bubble. They have literally ghost cities full of empty buildings and excess housing capacity.
China’s GDP is still growing at a faster rate than ours. They have other markets to tap on to thanks to Trump’s isolationist stance and erratic tariff policies. China is positioning itself as a more stable partner and a safer investment for business than the US and it shows.
“ Regardless, foreign countries have two choices – allow US consumers to foot the bill for tarriffs and see demand drop in the short run and production move to the US in the long run or to subsidize tarriffed goods.”
That’s a fantasy. Production will not move to the US. It will take decades to bring significant production, not enough to justify Trumps poor policies, we don’t have the capacity to built the needed supply chains and infrastructure fast enough to produce results. China does and it’s what it does best. That is why they stand to recover much faster and gain market share faster than us.
Trump’s tariffs have been a disaster and you can tell by how the markets are behaving. Even the optimistic outlook after SCOTUS arguments yesterday was enough to bouy the market into higher stocks. They WANT the tariffs to go away. They know it’s a bad idea.
When the tariffs are ruled illegal it will take away Trump’s biggest leverage he has against other countries and China will benefit the most. That is not good for us or Trump and the Republicans who enabled him.
Is every single other foreign leader int he world stupid ?
John, I’m surprised you haven’t yet read The Wealth of Nations, or you would know that the answer is “yes”. Every politician in every nation that imposes protectionist measures such as tariffs is either stupid or corrupt. As Milton Friedman pointed out back in the ’60s, this is the one issue on which all economists, from left to right, are united. Protectionism is stupid and wrong, but it’s politically addictive and politicians who know better still can’t give it up.
X says “It will show how stupid our current President is.” Right after George, now cosplaying as X, proclaiming for the last two years that Biden was brilliant, an intellectual force in the White House who was working his army of young intellectual aids into the ground each day.
Well done, Mad King George X… well done. BBBBUUUTTTTT…. MUH TRUMMMPPPPP!!!!!
Every Country Tariffs us and the President has the Constitutional duty to protect America. 50% gets 50% Why do liberals hate America. It is fully in his power to do this.
It will show our country is ruled by laws and the Constitution not by a “strong” man who imposes tariffs on a whim depending on who spoke to him last before going to bed.
I wonder what kind of vehicles these judges have been buying?
Those fancy & expensive imports or something domestic like Ford F-150?
Haven’t you heard ???
They don’t buy their own vehicles. They receive them as gifts from their billionaire buddies who installed them on the court in the first place. Thomas even got a huge motor home.
Try to keep up !!!
“They receive them as gifts from their billionaire buddies who installed them on the court in the first place.”
That’s interesting to hear. What did Sotomayors billionaire buddies buy her? She’s pocketed more cash than any justice on SCOTUS, so what did her buddies give her to impress her? Some Latino gangsta thing from a billionaire Illegal Alien MS-13 leader?
What a bunch of nonsense. What they drive? Get smart people.
Maybe Ford Probe?
Toyota’s DeliBoy?
Dodge RAM?
I’m thinking about something that can get the job done…Big or small. Mind you, most of these are imports (China) cost around $5 million. I’m not sure if that includes tariffs.
I know nothing about heavy duty trucks/vehicles. I was just making a dumb joke about their names, —vis-a-vis the role of SCOTUS, e.g., Ford Probe; “delivering” the opinion; RAMming it down the throats of dissenters. Be careful not to take me seriously, ha ha.
ANO
Ford F-150?
__________________
I would not touch one. Have you seen the re-calls on this truck. Quality is NOT job one at Ford.
“Have you seen the re-calls on this truck. Quality is NOT job one at Ford.”
Have you checked the long term durability of RAM pickups? It’s a joke. And Toyota never completely resolved the issue of rotting frames in their pickups, and their handling of it doesn’t speak too highly of quality control or integrity there. To refresh, Toyota evaded a recall by “voluntarily” replacing frames or buying back a number of Tacomas, which forestalled a mandatory US recall. The consequence, however, was that there was never a verified assessment of the scope/cause of the problem, nor when it began and ended. Not to mention that there is no evidence that the replaced frames were any different from the inadequately corrosion-proofed items that failed. That information comes from Toyota truck forums where nearly all of the participants are Toyota fanbois. I’m a pretty big fan of Toyotas in general myself (we’ve owned several of their SUVs) and I’m currently in the market for a recent used mid-sized pickup, but Toyota and Stellantis have eliminated themselves. I’m going with a gold-certified (12/12 – 7/100) F150 and crossing my fingers.
Ford recommends customers to buy 2 F-150 pickup trucks. One for the road & one for the repair shop.
It is difficult to assess just from the Company where something was produced.
Almost all Japanese cars for the US market are produced in north america most in the US.
Conversely many US brand vehicles are produced outside the US.
Even European Aircraft for US markets are made in the US.
Many Japanes cars are also made in Canada, So are US cars. Also Eurpean cars like VW are produce in Mexico and so are Korean cars. Dodge Ram pickups are made in Mexico. The free market is doing it’s job. Producing cars where it’s cheaper is a product of the free market. Yet we want to cheat the market by forcing companies to produce here at a higher cost.
Yet we want to cheat the market by forcing companies to produce here at a higher cost.
That thought brought to you by the communist Democrat X, who continues to demand that Democrats be allowed to continue cheating the American job market by first allowing 20 million criminal Illegal Aliens into the country – and now demanding those 20 million criminals be allowed to continue cheating the American job market.
Not to mention the American taxpayers who pick up the tab for Biden’s Illegal Alien guest Democrat voters accessing taxpayer programs restricted to American citizens.
“Prior to 1913 the Federal government funding was mostly tariffs. Who had the authority to impose them? ”
Short answer is: “Congress”. Long answer: National tariffs were a primary objective of first Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, going back to even before the successful conclusion of the Revolutionary War. Hamilton sought tariffs in order to replenish a national treasury that was severely in debt, largely, but not exclusively, because of the Revolution. That treasury had previously operated under the (pre-Constitutional) Confederation of States, which lacked the authority to levy any taxes (it relied on discretionary contributions from the States). Hamilton secured the backing of a majority of Congressional legislators, who enacted the requested tariffs. A few States that hosted major commercial ports, chiefly New York, were hold-outs, because those States had been collecting tariffs on their own all along, and taking in a lot of revenue in doing so, but the authorizing legislation did garner enough votes to pass.
I should have also mentioned James Madison, who aided Hamilton in shepherding crucial parts of the enabling Act through Congress.
If the Court finds ambiguity in IEEPA, then Congress should modernize the law — not penalize the nation for the executive using that ambiguity to defend it. President Trump’s tariffs strengthened our economic footing and national security. If those results serve America’s interests, we should clarify the authority, not erase the gains.
Congress’s failure to update IEEPA for modern economic threats created this gray area. The remedy isn’t to punish good outcomes; it’s to codify what worked and define it with clear limits. Let the current actions stand, pause for review if necessary, and rewrite the statute to specify when and how a president may act in defense of U.S. economic security.
That keeps the process constitutional, the executive accountable, and the country protected — exactly as the Framers intended.
Congress, what congress?
“President Trump’s tariffs strengthened our economic footing . . .”
So a massive tax on *American* companies (and their customers) somehow makes those companies more productive? And customers paying more for the same products, somehow improves their standard of living?
I must have missed those pages of the free market textbook.
Sam, I think you may have missed the thrust of my comment. I wasn’t arguing that tariffs are an economic good in themselves — they rarely are. My point was that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was written in 1977, long before our current web of global supply-chain vulnerabilities. When a President invokes that law in the context of a national-security threat, the question isn’t whether tariffs make us richer, but whether they make us safer.
If that authority has become too broad or ambiguous, then Congress should modernize the statute — defining when and how an executive can use it, setting clear triggers, reporting requirements, and sunsets. That preserves both flexibility for the commander in chief and accountability to the legislature. The danger isn’t that a president uses such power; it’s that Congress leaves it vague enough for abuse, or too rigid to respond when a real threat appears.
Olly, the question is whether there is justification to call it an “emergency”. Trump has been declaring “emergencies” as an excuse to impose rules and tariffs as way to bypass Congressional approval.
X, the partisan lenses have to come off if we’re going to have an honest debate. The real question isn’t who used the power, but whether the action genuinely served national and economic security under a vague 1977 law that never foresaw today’s threats. If it did, then Congress needs to modernize the statute, not just criticize the executive for using it.
There was never an emergency. It had nothing to do with national security. All are excuses to bypass Congress and allow the President to unilaterally impose taxes on US companies and threaten foreign companies and countries to “re-negotiate” trade deals under the threat of massive tariffs.
There were no “threats” claiming there were threats is just pretext to justify unilateral action that otherwise would be harder to do when done lawfully. Trump loves to use blackmail and extortion as negotiating tools and imposing tariffs on a whim or whenever he feels dissed is not a winning strategy at all. What he did succeed at is alienate everyone and pushed business towards China and other countries who will gladly avoid doing business with us. Our soy farmers are the first victims of Trump’s stupid tariffs. Now the cattle ranchers are feeling betrayal when Trump decided to bail out Argentinian ranchers and bailing out their leader because he is incompentent but a big fan of Trump.
I agree Congress could modernize the IEEPA but, it has not and Trump chose to byapss all the hard work and just declare an “emergency” or for the “purpose of national security” to unilaterally impose taxes (tariffs) on US companies because he feels other countries are taking advantage. Trump has no idea how tariffs work and who pays them.
X, your outrage always seems reserved only for when a Republican uses the same tools Democrats have used without objection. The IEEPA didn’t suddenly become dangerous when Trump invoked it — it’s been stretched by every administration because Congress left it vague. If we’re going to have an honest discussion about executive overreach, it has to apply to all presidents, not just the ones we dislike. Otherwise, it’s not about the rule of law — it’s about whose jersey we’re wearing.
Emergencies have been declared to reverse the invasion of millions of criminals and stop foreign terrorist and drug cartels from killing you and your family Assuming you have one.. And create an economy that thrives. Bypass congress? Not at all, if dems won’t play, its not his fault, but just to get his agenda implemented was why he was elected. Just like Biden did, which also bypassed congress.
So if trump does it, its bad, Biden its good?
Not at all, if dems won’t play, its not his fault, but just to get his agenda implemented was why he was elected. Just like Biden did, which also bypassed congress.
That sounds pretty much the same as Obama saying that if Congress doesn’t give him what he demands, then he has his phone and pen and knows how to use them to bypass Congress.
I don’t want ANY president getting away with doing that. Whether there is or isn’t an emergency is probably what SCOTUS will consider while ruling on this specific use of that legislation.
X says: “Trump has been declaring “emergencies” as an excuse to impose rules and tariffs as way to bypass Congressional approval.”
ALMOST as bad as Biden declaring the 6% of students who couldn’t repay their student loans was Biden’s excuse to attempt to buy student votes by bypassing Congress – and then SCOTUS – to attempt moving their entire trillion dollars of debt onto the backs of all American taxpayers who DIDN’T voluntarily sign up for that debt.
Mad King George X’s sloppy hypocritical view of the world.
“. . . the question isn’t whether tariffs make us richer, but whether they make us safer.”
Then my counter-argument is this: The richer a country, the safer it is. It is our economic prowess that makes possible B-2 stealth bombers.
Fair point, Sam — but history cuts both ways. Wealth has fueled plenty of foreign adventures, yes, but this president’s record shows the opposite instinct: using economic leverage to avoid military entanglement, not invite it. The goal isn’t to build wealth for war; it’s to build enough strength that war becomes unnecessary. Economic tools, when used prudently, can deter conflict far better than sending troops.
Olly: Though we disagree, thank you for upholding the standards of a *civilized* debate.
Thanks, Sam. We won’t always agree, but keeping it civil is how real debate still works.
Econic prowess? Because can build a $2.2 Billion dollar bomber? How does that make us more economically secure?
China’s economic prowess is displayed by it’s improving infrastructure, a manufacturing base that can produce anything better and cheaper.
We can barely maintain our infrastructure and/or manufacture more than just cars and planes and military hardware.
A B-2 Bomber can sit looking pretty in a nice expensive hangar and contribute nothing to the economy. Infrastructure supporting transportation of goods and facilitating supply chains contributes to the economy a thousand times more than their original cost.
Europe did this for years until it was surpassed by China.
Econic prowess? Because can build a $2.2 Billion dollar bomber? How does that make us more economically secure?
Milton Friedman – Lesson of the Pencil
https://youtu.be/4ERbC7JyCfU?si=jdXwMAYZGapbW_xe&t=13
The ignorance of economics combined with ignorance of recent history on display. Those bombers just destroyed Obama and Biden’s favorite American killing Mad Mullah terrorists in Iran’s dreams of building a nuclear weapon to use on America and Israel. Economic security includes the security of knowing terrorists who helped fly hijacked airliners into highrisers where thousands of Americans were working won’t be handing out nukes to kill Americans like they handed out advanced IEDs to murder Americans in Afghanistan.
China’s economic prowess is displayed by it’s improving infrastructure, a manufacturing base that can produce anything better and cheaper.
Using slave labor like their Ugher population. AFTER they steal the American intellectual property, blueprints, etc to build many of their products. Whether their knockoff copies of our military and other technology is better… well, you just keep on believing that.
A B-2 Bomber can sit looking pretty in a nice expensive hangar and contribute nothing to the economy.
While a Ugher serving as a slave in Communist China is a better example of contributing to the economy? Remarkably similar economic views to those of Mad King George X on how Darkies in America should be dealt with.
If you think that bomber that crushed your Dear Leader’s little friends in Iran’s nuclear weapon dreams doesn’t contribute anything to the economy, then the lessons of “I, Pencil” have been lost on you your entire life.
You pathetic communist Democrats couldn’t even figure out the economic contribution and complexity of manufacturing a simple pencil.
“A B-2 Bomber can sit looking pretty in a nice expensive hangar . . .”
Iran could not be reached for comment.
Unsurprisingly, you butchered my argument.
Right on.
We are constantly in an economic war/battle/competition. The world looks at us as a rasperry ripe for the picking. Inchek spies set up honeypot bimbos in our house, stealing defense and intellectual information. So-called allies blackmail our politicians. Congress is either AWOL or in on the gang rape of our nation. Our press is a Frankenstein mockingbird. There are 30-40 million illegal alien invaders in our house. Our manufacturing base has been under attack for decades. Consumers are addicted to government handouts, cheap crap, and lousy food. Someone needs to lead the way out of the morass and it isn’t Democrat Socialists.
Who is we?
We is the American people
Try to keep up.
Wanna try again? Your use of grammar is quite challenging, to say the least Einstein.
From Don Surber: “The real threat to the Republic is in the hands of the Supreme Court which heard on Wednesday the challenge to Trump’s tariffs. Justices have in their hands to destroy the economy and his presidency. Don’t think they have the will to do so just to get Trump? The same players behind the covid pandemic panic are pushing this. And remember, this is the same court that refused to hear his challenges to the shady 2020 election vote counting.”
Imagine that SCOTUS: “have in their hands to destroy the economy and his presidency. ”
Would SCOTUS really want to destroy the USA? What if they do decide against the gov.?
I believe its Trumps duty as POTUS to ignore a bad decision. he represents 330 million, not 9.
If I were POTUS I would “respectfully” defy their (negative) decision. A see what happens… impeachment? How could the democrat impeach him for wanting a strong USA.
But they are evil people. Never thought I’d write that.
If you think the President should ignore Supreme Court decisions you don’t like then YOU are the evil person.
Wanna try and make some sense with your comment? Rewrite it to make sense. The operative word is think.
Biden did and the dems did what? ZIP!
“I believe its Trumps duty as POTUS to ignore a bad decision. he represents 330 million, not 9.”
Biden repeatedly ignored SCOTUS telling him he couldn’t transfer a trillion dollars in student debt onto the backs of American taxpayers.
I didn’t want Trump to claim it’s his duty as a King like Biden was, to claim he’s ignoring SCOTUS because it’s a bad decision that hurts Americans.
When the opposition is claiming you’re a lawless tyrant, you don’t want your chosen political leaders to run off the reservation that is the Constitution in order to prove them right.
“The same players behind the covid pandemic panic are pushing this.”
As with all conspiracy theories, this one is utterly detached from reality.
The original plaintiffs are *American* small businesses. The lead law firm is a free market, pro-entrepreneur, nonprofit organization — whose chairman voted for Trump three times.
Read that too… a small business. F-ing amazing. Got to be more behind it.
*. What of the admins position of lifted tariffs if producer x locates within the US utilizing American labor? Tariff and tax aren’t interchangeable words.
The great dumbing down was on display and deeply problematic.
“Tariff and tax aren’t interchangeable words.”
Actually, they are. A tariff is a type of sales tax. Though it is more insidious because that tax is hidden from the end consumer.
Roberts seems to have a maliable definition of tax.
Remember Roberts declaring Obamacare a tax when the authors and legislation clearly stated the opposite?
I have little sympathy with tariffs, but legislation can’t change it’s essence by adding “It’s not what it looks like”.
Plus it was going to lower the cost of health-care…. YEA NOT!
Plus the libs want illegals to have O-dumber care. At our cost.
So who do they care about?
No they are not. A cost of doing business. Accounting 101. See GAAP.
Yet corps. choose to portray the data as an assualt on their companies, and resorting to political hyperbole instead.
Everywhere I hear my friends complaining the tariffs are being paid by them, the buyers. At a simplistic level, indeed these tariffs are a tax. Totally true. But delving deeper (on the presumption you have to be able to walk and chew gum), then because it’s the sole purview of the executive to move the needle with enemies and allies alike (in our nation’s interests), they’re not simply a tax. Instead, they are a lever with which to effect changes in behavior for the benefit of the country.
Let me try explain; a reason these aren’t taxes as usual is because we don’t have an effective industrial policy. One by which the executive can maneuver and guide our interests (for example, the Chinese gather and create 5-year plans with which to guide their nation, and then all work together to achieve them). Put in concrete ways, if not with tariffs, how else is the executive to administer a vision, for example, of returning some measure of manufacturing to the nation? What other tool does the executive have of encouraging, again by way of example, Aloca to forge aluminum in the USA instead of Canada? This, presumably, being an area in which it’s the executive’s judgement there’s a critical weakness of the United States.
Specifically, isn’t it the executive’s basic job to ensure we are not dependent on enemies in critical areas of manufactury. But Canada isn’t an enemy, say some. Well, maybe, maybe not – but – look to the recent actions of Premier Ford (Ontario) to twist the words of President Reagan’s argument in favor of a tariffs on Japan . . . this wasn’t exactly a friendly act, was it? That was another (presumably friendly) country trying to fight back against the actions of the USA.
Now switch the argument to steel from aluminum. Specifically, shipbuilding as a means of making war. Can we agree we use the US Navy as a means of executive policy? Sure, the executive asks Congress, but the basic decision to go to war is the executives’, and yes Congress grants approval but we can’t put the cart ahead of the horse because it’s not Congress’ job to decide to go to war, right? So a capability which is presently woefully under strength (because we don’t have sufficient foundries and forges to fire up the arsenal of democracy if the time comes) is shipbuilding. Ships are largely made of steel. Proof? If this weren’t true (that we lack critical capability for making ships), then why else are we turning to South Korea for the needs of the US Navy to have more Aegis destroyers, and to Finland to produce ice breakers for the Coast Guard to defend national interests in the arctic?
In summary, is it not the fundamental nature of the executive to protect and defend our interests, to see the big picture and guide the nation? If this is the case, then unlike a tax on the people for the purpose raising money to fund government (the purview of the Congress), these tariffs are instead a means for the executive for effecting policy. The tariffs change behaviors of manufacturers. Thus, while it’s true they raise monies and can be viewed as a tax, it’s their effect to shape behavior, a purpose not being to fill the treasury for ordinary spending, which makes them different from the role of mere taxes enacted by Congress. They are a lever of control. This makes the fundamentally different.
That’s a pretty convoluted argument. Tariffs are a tax on importers which are then passed on to consumers. The power to tax rests solely on Congress, not the President. Trump is using Tariffs as taxes on other countries which he still believes they pay and that is not true. U.S. Companies pay the tax (tariff).
Congress did NOT give Trump the authority to impose unilaterally tariffs on anything he deems unfair. He recently threatened to impose tariffs on Canada because he didn’t like an how an ad in Canada portrayed him.
Plus, SCOTUS will have to deal with the major questions doctrine problem. If they want to keep that doctrine as legitimate they will have to rule against Trump because if they do rule in Trump’s favor they seriously undermine the major questions doctrine and they will not be able to use it against a Democrat president when the time comes.
What Trump is doing is taxing americans without the authority of Congress. Then there is the problem proving there is an emergency. Especially after Trump unilaterally threatened to impose 100% tariffs on Canada because of an ad. It directly undermines the claim of an “emergency”.
Curious? Was that Canada blopper actually used as an argument before the court?
X says: Congress did NOT give Trump the authority to impose unilaterally tariffs on anything he deems unfair.
But George! Congress did NOT give Biden the authority to attempt to impose a trillion dollars of student debt onto the backs of American taxpayers. You defended him doing that here for years, fang and claw.
You continued defending Biden doing that when he proclaimed himself a king who could IGNORE the SCOTUS ruling saying he couldn’t do that.
Biden did that for the corrupt purpose of buying votes. Trump’s tariffs – even if your shrieks this legislation doesn’t give him the authority to do this are right – are for the purpose of bettering the country, not buying votes.
Got anything better without the hypocrisy to offer, Mad King George X?
My guess is they will decide that IEEPA allows tariffs as a form of regulation, but the delegation of such broad unlimited authority is unconstitutional.
The conservative justices were stuck on this one because this was clearly a major questions doctrine issue that they did not want to dive into because it would undermine their ability to rein in future democratic presidents.
It’s clear that the Trump administration’s authority under the IEEPA does not grant it the power to impose tariffs at all. License fees and tariffs are certainly not the same. It’s interesting how the Professor chose to focus more on Katyal and refer to him as a “far-left advocate” without similarly mentioning Sauer. That’s the tell showing his bias.
It is more likely the court will rule against the Trump administration on this one because the one thing this court is keenly wary of is the President’s power to seriously affect the economy single-handedly and that brings up the major questions doctrine problem for the conservative justices. If they allow Trump to impose tariffs with abandon as he is doing now the next Democratic president can do just as much as he pleases and we know the conservative wing of the Supreme Court would not stand for that. So, to keep the major questions doctrine useful they must rule in favor of the plaintiffs.
Then there is the textualist problem. The word “tariff” is nowhere in the IEEPA. Using the License fee as a substitute would not be a textualist interpretation of the law. This is where the conservative Calvin-ball method of interpretation may come into play.
One thing is for sure. Congress will have a. big problem on how to deal with the refunding of those billions they unlawfully took if the ruling goes against the Trump administration. They can’t just keep that money that was illegally acquired through an unlawful use of the IEEPA.
Well said. Same conclusion.
X wants to give back millions that Trump collected with his tariffs. That won’t happen just as X saying Harris would win didn’t happen.
So you’re ok with government theft? LIbertarians should be having a field day with this. If Trump’s tariffs are deemed illegal Congress is obligated to return illegally obtained money. Companies can sue and they likely will.
Likely will… but the consumer who paid it will not see a credit. It always comes down to the consumer who gets economically throttled.
I wonder how the dems will respond if POTUS is shot down? Cheering in congress?
“Likely will… but the consumer who paid it will not see a credit.”
Exactly. And that’s how Trump has always operated. Scamming others for his benefit. Trump supporters are being ripped off right before their eyes and they have no clue.
It’s not what the Democrats will do. It’s what Republicans will do. They are in control of both houses. It will be their job to figure out how to get out of Trump’s tariff mess. The Supreme Court’s only job is to rule whether Trump’s tarrifs are legal or not. The consequences are up to Congress to figure out.
DEMS scammed taxpayers TRILLIONS!! LOOK AT BIDEN- DUMB X
You are ranting. Mindless …
So you think spending our tax money for illegals. Is that mindless.
Consumers are not being ripped off, not all it depends on their politics.
What I meant, and you knew that, if the gov. is required to reimburse the importers, they will not reduce consumer prices as a form of credit.
“Reps. are in control”, your being facetious, they are not, so its all of congress to decide. What will the dems do in retaliation? I shutter to think.
What if SCOTUS kicks the can? Possibility?
SCOTUS won’t “kick the can”. They can’t. If they do they will undermine the major questions doctrine and that is their go-to tool if a Democrat becomes president. They wouldn’t want to undermine that option by ruling in Trump’s favor.
If the government reimburses importers and those importers don’t reduce prices then the same problem will crop up. Cheaper goods from China will force them to reduce prices once again and Wall Street is betting on that. They want consumers to be able to afford things so their stock prices can grow.
And more Americans will be left behind, the rich get richer, corps. more powerful. The illegals take the food out of Americans mouths. Many will be fooled by socialist messaging, vote so, and that wave will destroy us the economy. You too.
So we’re back to square one.
“And more Americans will be left behind, the rich get richer, corps. more powerful.”
Marxist hatred of The Evil Rich And Corporations… it isn’t just a Democrat thing.
In a country where 95% of the multi-millionaires today made the transition from beginning in the lower economic classes to where they now are in the upper income classes – rather than the Marxist belief that you’re a victim condemned to remain in the lower economic classes if you began there. Opinions based on envy, hatred and greed can be found on both sides of the isle.
X says: It’s not what the Democrats will do. It’s what Republicans will do. They are in control of both houses.
And yet Trump as a King can’t end the Schumer Shutdown, nor order Republicans to do that. And the Republicans are so much in control of the Senate that hundreds of Trump appointments are still blocked by Comrade Schumer. And the Senate can’t get this continuation spending bill past Comrade Schumer – again, despite X repeatedly claiming Republicans control Congress.
that’s how Trump has always operated. Scamming others for his benefit. Trump supporters are being ripped off right before their eyes and they have no clue.
And if that were true, X cosplays as never having seen Bribery Biden doing far, far worse by taking White House bribes from the Chicoms for his own benefit. Or ripping off Democrats who pay taxes by attempting to transfer a trillion dollars of voluntary student loan debt onto their backs – all to benefit himself in hopes of buying their votes.
Or Obama ruining Democrats as well as Republicans with his Marxist Obamacare made up of lies and broken promises.
Mad King George X… can you post at least once in a while without basing your posts on glaring hypocrisy?
X must have had his STUDENT LOANS paid off by Biden!! BRIBES!!!
At least he has an education. You?
“At least he has an education. You?”
How’s that Ph.D education you got in Lesbian Dance Theory working out for you trying to figure out how to repay your student loans?
Biden who graduated at the top of his class with two degrees on a full pull scholarship can’t offload that debt onto American taxpayers to save you now!
“So you’re ok with government theft?”
Well George, there has never been a day when you didn’t bray enthusiastically for Redistribute The Wealth and every other communist government theft scheme proposed by Bernie Sanders and AOC. As long as it targets those you also hate.
Does it help you to think of tariffs as your beloved equity in action? The rich don’t get any different treatment than the poor!
X says: “So you’re ok with government theft?”
No, I’m certainly not OK with Marxist/Communist presidents stealing from Americans by proclaiming they’re “Redistributing the wealth” to their shiftless identity politics groups and criminal Illegal Aliens.
And I’m certainly not OK with Marxist/Communist presidents attempting to steal from Americans by attempting to make them responsible for the trillion dollars in student debt because a small fraction of student loan borrowers said they simply couldn’t figure out how to pay it back.
You defended that government theft for YEARS, X, when you were George before you Trannied to become X.
You Marxist Democrats LOVE government theft from anyone who has a dollar more than you do.
X wants? God lord man you are a nitwit. Hockey puck huh?
BILLIONS COLLECTED!!
George/X says, “It’s interesting how the Professor chose to focus more on Katyal and refer to him as a ‘far-left advocate’ without similarly mentioning Sauer. That’s the tell showing his bias.”
I regret, that I must question who here has the bias? Katyal is a well-known opinionist, most often retained by MSNBC, who seldom deviates (if ever) from his belief in his own perspectives.
How many times, George, have you seen Sauer spouting his opinions on Fox or Newsmax or other?
I leave my opinion out. Since you seem to favor what you read on the Internet to form your own opinions, why don’t you take the time to look him up. Here’s a good example for you.
“Neal Katyal, former Obama administration acting U.S. Solicitor General and now frequent pro-Democratic MSNBC guest, was the partisan choice of Wednesday evening’s PBS NewsHour as its sole expert opinion-giver…”
https://www.newsbusters.org/non-journalists/neal-katyal
and CNN
“Welcome back to our program. NEAL KATYAL, FORMER U.S. ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL….”
https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/ampr/date/2024-07-01/segment/01
Thanks for considering my point.
Lin, so you claim because Katyal has been on opinion segments and on MSNBC somehow deserves to be labeled “far-left” by Turley but Sauer, who has defended pedophile priests and Trump’s claims of voter fraud and other conservative causes doesn’t?
Turley has a knack for labeling and smearing in a backhanded way when he wants to skew an argument. Sauer is clealry a very conservative individual. Should he be granted the label “far-right”? Based on Turley’s style of writing, he should.
George. George. George. Remember your forever invocations of reading context and comprehension against other commenters?
Neither Sauer’s nor Katyal’s LEGAL REPRESENTATION of parties has anything to do with it.
EXTRA-JUDICIAL and/or VOLUNTARY ENGAGEMENT in MEDIA/televised discussions/panels is a whole different thing, n’est ce pas?
Professor Turley referred to Katyal as a “liberal firebrand.” This is a WIDELY-held and basically irrefutable impression, and I pointed out his retention at MSNBC for example.
I asked you to show me where Sauer is known for particularly opinionist appearances in media platforms such as Katyal is/does. You failed to do so.
thanks anyway.
X says: “Turley has a knack for labeling and smearing in a backhanded way when he wants to skew an argument.”
George X’s love affair with Professor Turley lasted exactly one day, yesterday. Now we’re back to his daily BBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!!!!
And if they see IEEPA as including fees or tariffs within the power to “regulate”, then the delegation of power is unconstitutional, at least as applied in this case. I think that is what they will ultimately decide, since there is no intelligible principle to limit the delegation of power, as applied. They have to rule against Trump in this case. The question is how they word it.
X says: It’s clear that the Trump administration’s authority under the IEEPA does not grant it the power to impose tariffs at all.
It is????? If it were as clear as you pronounce it to be, this wouldn’t be in front of SCOTUS in the first place. Relevant to your pronouncements today of what is and isn’t authorized: where did you find Biden’s authority to transfer a trillion dollars in student debt to the backs of American taxpayers come from?
It’s relevant to your ongoing lack of credibility because you defended Biden repeatedly doing that, including when in defiance of SCOTUS saying he couldn’t, for years.
Where in the Constitution or legislation passed by Congress did you find Biden’s authority to move a trillion dollars of voluntary student loan debt onto the backs of American taxpayers?
I’m open to the honest arguments for and against these tariffs that are put before SCOTUS.
I laugh at and mock the hypocritical pronouncements of hysterical Democrat shrills and Marxist apparatchiks, Tovarisch X.
Prior to the income tax I wasn’t most of the federal budget funded by tariffs like from 1789 to 1913? Who imposed those tariffs?
I believe you are correct. In modern times tariffs were about 5% of the government’s revenue.
Congress and the POTUS. When USA was homogenous, they made laws together.
This is a case where the interpretation of the language of the law may be correlated with the decision. But the interpretation, from what you’ve written, is vague. This implies the correlation is vague, and therefore so will be the decision. So much for the analytical part of the case. The emotional (postmodern) part is that some of the justices may decide in favor of or disfavor of the case on the basis that Trump himself is involved – all dressed up in legalese, of course.
Vague? How much detail do you expect from Turley. Check check scotusblog.com for details. Its well covered there.
Nobody ever expects the three far-left justices to change their minds, or vote against their political “side”. And they never do. It’s a waste of time for them even to show up, since they can just cast their votes before even hearing cases argued.
“Nobody ever expects the three far-left justices to change their minds,” Maybe if the gov lawyers included arguments such as.. it will help employ millions of illegal immigrants, or do it for the children…
I fear its a loss.
Why can administrations in the past cutoff trade altogether with other countries without issue? Why should this administration or any other be hobbled to introduce tariffs to level the trading field? Why should the supreme court or any court be making decisions concerning US international trade affairs?
As you says, they can cut off trade. But can’t impose tariffs.
But this admin is not being hobbled. They did not have the power to impose tariffs. SCOTUS’s job is to reviews laws.
For someone you thinks she’s an intellectual, you sure no knowing… less than clueless
“For someone you thinks she’s an intellectual, you sure no knowing… less than clueless”
If you’re going to try an ad hominem attack, at least have the sentence make sense.
Um… another bad tempered anon, so many here. Why don’t you rewrite it? But anon can’t, just shoots of its mouth to score points.
“Anonymous says:
As you says, they can cut off trade.….”
Ah the Blue Banana has awakened. I’ve now found each morning that I read any of your meaningless gobbledygook my morning bowl movement is easier. May I suggest you leave mom & dad’s basement and seek employment with Ex-Lax?
Meaningless huh? Really? Then why do you always respond?
Yeah, why do you respond. Your responses always backfires.
The federal budget was mostly funded by tariffs before passage of the personal income tax amendment. Who authorized those tariffs? I don’t know I’m just asking
Congress and POTUS – when they played as a team.
It’s irrelevant. What happened in the past does not apply to the present. Back then there was no IEEPA or even a federal reserve board.
I guess the dankness of your mom’s basement affected your ability to string a sentence together.
Ah ha, hockey puck finally showed up. Your parents finally let you out of the barn?
Hockey puck huh?
Anon here, not your favorite anon. You sure are *itchy when one calls you out. Honestly, your comment are passive/aggressive.
But other anon is right; just ignore the taunts.
We’re $38 trillion in debt and currently running close to $2 trillion annual deficits. Shortly after Trump taking office our trade deficit was running at $1.3 trillion annually. Our trade imbalance is a dumpster fire. So now the Supreme Court is arguing who’s responsible for the fire while the fire is still raging. It is an emergency. Do they really think Trump should just ignore it and let an ineffective and corrupt Congress just sit idly by and do nothing!
The debt amount is not a SCOTUS issue.
Now that Trump is a lame duck POTUS…
“Our trade imbalance is a dumpster fire.”
I have a trade deficit with Walmart, Amazon, and countless other businesses. Are those also a “dumpster fire?”
A “trade deficit” with country X simply means that Americans buy more products from that country, than country X’s citizens buy from American companies.
Apparently, the fear-mongers do not grasp the positive implications of that “deficit” — that Americans are productive and wealthy enough to afford those international products.
MAGA is dead.
With COMMIES like Mamdani and the DEMS– making America great is getting harder. LOSER!
So K (Karen?) calls anon a loser?
MAGA Lost yesterday, that makes Karen the LOSER!
LOL.. Poor child
Got proof K is a child?
NYC Election Fears Fuel $100M Florida Real Estate Surge
https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/nyc-election-fears-drive-100m-florida-real-estate-surge-nervous-new-yorkers-flee-south
Parents Began Planning To Pull Their Children From NYC Schools Minutes After Zohran Mamdani’s Mayoral Win
https://nypost.com/2025/11/05/us-news/families-are-fleeing-nyc-private-schools-following-mamdani-victory-competing-for-coveted-miami-spots/
If MAGA is dead, why are so many people fleeing Democrat ran cities and states?
Fleeing? Are really that gullible? Don’t need to read the arts., they’re based on opinion, not facts. One person makes not a tidal wave of feeling taxpayers.
So you have not noticed how the population of FL has gone up.
Texas Police Union Recruits NYPD Officers After Mamdani’s Win
https://www.dailywire.com/news/are-you-disgusted-texas-police-union-recruits-nypd-officers-after-mamdanis-win?topStoryPosition=undefined&author=Jennie+Taer&category=News&elementPosition=2&row=1&rowHeadline=Top+Stories&rowType=Top+Stories&title=%E2%80%98Are+You+Disgusted%3F%E2%80%99+Texas+Police+Union+Recruits+NYPD+Officers+After+Mamdani%E2%80%99s+Win
If MAGA is dead, why are so many people fleeing Democrat ran cities and states?
Malliotakis joins Stefanik in condemning swastikas painted on NYC Jewish school, calling out Mamdani
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/stefanik-malliotakis-react-swastikas-painted-new-york-city-jewish-school-call?utm_source=mux&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=social-media-autopost?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Looks like Nazis and found a new ally in Mamdani and the Democrat party.
Again, Are really that gullible? Or really just plain stupid.
Ahhhh! Once again, I set out a trap knowing full well you would be stupid enough to step into my trap!
How marvelous!!
California says it lost $2 billion in state income taxes from earners leaving
“In 2019, a net 170,000 Californian taxpayers and their dependents left the state, a figure that rose to 263,000 in 2020 and 332,000 in 2021, before falling to 307,000 in 2022.”
That is NOT one person.
Outmigration cost California $24B in departed incomes as poorer people move in
“304 companies have left California since January 2019, according to the California Policy Center’s California Book of Exoduses, which tracks corporate exits from California.”
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/outmigration-cost-california-24b-departed-incomes-poorer-people-move
So, now who is the stupid one?
“We begin with the clear votes in favor of the Administration by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. ”
Egregious error there Professor. Should be: “We begin with the clear votes [against] the Administration by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. ”
Those two are always a given (well, almost always) when Trump is involved.
I predict a 5-4 decision, with Roberts writing the opinion. The four women will dissent. The opinion will allow what Trump has done but base it ultimately on the plenary power of the President over foreign policy. It will be such a narrow opening that future Presidents won’t be able to use it and will probably foreclose Trump from using it again in the future. But it won’t require all those tariffs to be returned.
5 to 4. Um… what we read, this is a longshot, a hail mary … hope there’s enough cash in the Treasury. Maybe Trump can make a deal with the exporters, give them worth bonds instead of cash.
Prior to 1913 the Federal government funding was mostly tariffs. Who had the authority to impose them? Just asking. I don’t know.
Is a bear an animal? Yes. Are all animals bears? No.
Similarly, is the tariff raising money like a tax? Yes, but unlike taxes raised for the purpose of funding government, tariffs raise money as a byproduct of being used as a tool of the executive, so they’re not principally about taxing. Instead, their purpose to shape behavior.
Makes them a lever, a tool of the executive. Different.
“Instead, their purpose to shape behavior.”
In plain economic English: That’s called protectionism and government-controlled industrial policy.
Since when are those conservative values?
Since they imposed protectionist laws beginning 1787.