A 50 year mortgage..

[CptTrips]

I never said they weren't. Seems to me they should necessarily increase the price of an imported product to the end user. Unless the country enslaving it's people is willing to absorb the cost of tariffs to achieve their long term goal.

So just to simplify it for my little monkey brain, Yes, tariffs are inflationary.

According to DemnSlayer, they also appear to be an inflationary revenue generating tax on the American people.

That power is exclusively the right of the Legislature.  And no, Congress can't just delegate that away.  That would be altering the Constitution without going through the amending process.

Otherwise a rogue could get his party in power and have them assign all former powers of the Legislature to the President thus creating a King.

No party has the right to throw away future elected representatives Constitutional powers unless they amend the Constitution by the proscribed process.

[AKIron]

While the end effect may be the same it is a leap to call tariffs a tax on the consumer. No one is forced to buy foreign made products and so no one is being forcibly taxed.

[CptTrips]

While the end effect may be the same it is a leap to call tariffs a tax on the consumer. No one is forced to buy foreign made products and so no one is being forcibly taxed.

I don't think the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court agrees with you.  He may have studied the law a little bit.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who is considered a key vote, called the tariffs an "imposition of taxes on Americans ... that has always been the core power of Congress."

He said, "It's been suggested that the tariffs are responsible for significant reduction in our deficit. I would say that's raising revenue domestically."

[AKIron]

Congress can and has delegated to the President the authority to impose tariffs. Especially when pertaining to national security. If our present situation does not meet that standard then nothing ever has or ever will.

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

Section 232 is what you want to look at.

[CptTrips]

Congress can and has delegated to the President the authority to impose tariffs. Especially when pertaining to national security. If our present situation does not meet that standard then nothing ever has or ever will.

No Congress can not delegate away Constitutional powers without amending the Constitution.

Is Canada about to invade us?  How are tariffs on Canada a national security issue?

Hint:  The court will agree with me.  You'll see.

[CptTrips]

Congress can and has delegated to the President the authority to impose tariffs. Especially when pertaining to national security. If our present situation does not meet that standard then nothing ever has or ever will.

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

I expect you not to complain when President AOC declares gun control and climate change national security issues.   


If you can claim anything is an emergency, and we are in a constant never ending state of emergency for one excuse or another, then you have no Constitutional order.

[AKIron]

That would be as violation of his oath to defend the US Constitution and ill met by most here.

Read the law and look at what I linked.

[CptTrips]

That would be as violation of his oath to defend the US Constitution and ill met by most here.

No it would be him protecting the Constitution and enforcing the common sense, originalist interpretation of the text.


You don't have to like it.  But what the SC decides is the law of the land.  That's how our system operates.

There are SC decision I don't like, but I always accept they become the law of the land.  You can't decide to only follow the decisions you like.


The decision will be 5:2 by the way.

[AKIron]

The SCOTUS decreed that the 2nd Amendment was and is an individual right protected, not granted, by the Constitution.

Apart from that the US Constitution did not make the SCOTUS the arbiter of what is constitutional. The SCOTUS itself granted itself that authority.

[CptTrips]

the US Constitution did not make the SCOTUS the arbiter of what is constitutional. The SCOTUS itself grated itself that authority.

Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of laws through its power of judicial review. This allows the Court to invalidate laws or executive actions that it finds to be in conflict with the Constitution. The power of judicial review was established in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison and serves as a crucial check and balance on the other branches of government.

The ability to decide Constitutionality is a requirement of Article III.  Otherwise there is no mechanism.

[Randy1]

Keep in mind as well the increase basic standard of living. has really gone up.

Just look at the telephone going from the single black phone for the whole family to multiple smart phones.

[CptTrips]

And do tariffs advantage domestic companies?

Most just raise their prices to match the inflated tariff price and pocket the extra profit so the CEO can get a bigger bonus again.
The tariffs give domestic competitors cover to raise their prices for no reason other than they can get away with it, because you have lessened their competition.

And average folks just get screwed over and over and over.

And even if you look past greed, many are having their inputs costs skyrocket either because they have imported inputs or a domestic supplier of input jacks his prices because tariffs have lessened his competition, and he can now get away with it.
 
And average folks just get screwed over and over and over.

I've said my say here.  I'm going to save all my rule violation points for the coming Epstein Files thread.  I'm gonna need them.

[AKIron]

I've said my say here.  I'm going to save all my rule violation points for the coming Epstein Files thread.  I'm gonna need them.

Wait! I haven't even called you a punk yet. 

[CptTrips]

Wait! I haven't even called you a punk yet. 

Save it for later.

[CptTrips]

No it would be him protecting the Constitution and enforcing the common sense, originalist interpretation of the text.


You don't have to like it.  But what the SC decides is the law of the land.  That's how our system operates.

There are SC decision I don't like, but I always accept they become the law of the land.  You can't decide to only follow the decisions you like.


The decision will be 5:2 by the way.

Sorry.

Meant 7:2.

I first thought 5:4 but then thought nah, this is going down hard.