4 ms·
Cool, still unconstitutional.
by duped 2y ago
Cool, still unconstitutional.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoSo, for those of us who haven't studied this in depth, why do you say it's unconstitutional? Do tariffs require congressional approval? Or what?
- warkdarrior 2y agoTariffs are a form of taxation. If I want to import say tea, and the government is placing a tariff on that imported tea, I am effectively taxed by the government. And only Congress can impose new taxes.
- nwienert 2y agoThe Trade Act of 1974 gives the president power to impose retaliatory tariffs.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoNot saying you're wrong, but... I have seen claims that tariffs are a source of government income that Congress doesn't control. You're claiming they do. I haven't seen a citation from either side. Can you substantiate your position?
- duped 2y agoI have already explained my thinking up this comment chain. I'm mostly replying to GP who misunderstands that the intent of the tariffs is besides the point. TL;DR read Article I section 8, read up about the Trade Expansion act of 1962 and Trade act of 1974, and "non-delegation doctrine", and you can trivially find legal debate about the constitutionality of IEEPA. Rather than listen to random nerds on HN you should seek out this information yourself.