Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution begins as follows:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
The word “duties” is effectively the same thing as tariffs. The Constitution gives Congress the power to set tariffs– not the President.
I like the fact that tariffs are being used to resuscitate American manufacturing. President Trump brought a much-needed corrective on this matter. It is not unusual for presidents to test the limits of executive authority. While some of us might feel that Trump is substantively correct to use tariffs to a greater extent, that does not mean he truly has constitutional authority to do so.
An article at the Cato blog explains that Congress for many years has delegated to the president the right to set tariffs. In fact, there are several statutes that potentially do this; and therefore, ample precedent for presidents setting tariffs. That is what the Supreme Court justices were discussing yesterday– i.e., statutes being utilized.
But strictly speaking, it is inappropriate and illegal for Congress to cede its authority to another branch of government. These statutes being cited, to the extent they authorize the executive to set tariffs, are likely unconstitutional.
The Constitution is supposed to be followed, but it often is not.
I think you are right that the Supreme Court decided rightly, Triad. Something I never expect, having observed their history. Trump was incredibly boorish in his ad hominem attack on them. Though for many other rulings, they have deserved severe criticism, in this case Trump’s reaction is really is bad for rule of law and respect for institutions.
“It is not unusual for presidents to test the limits of executive authority.” Think about what a negative truth that is. A president takes an oath to protect the Constitution, not to run around it and destroy its restraints.
J. Sobran, while I think the Supreme Court decided correctly, it appears it did so for the wrong reasons. My understanding is that they felt the statute did not say what Trump said it did. While I did not read the decision, it does not appear from the news accounts I read that the decision is based in the text of the Constitution itself. That leaves the door open for Trump to use one or more of the other statutes that are being mentioned.
And you are precisely right that presidents are supposed to remain within Constitutional boundaries. The Congress and the courts and the administrative state– the unspoken fourth branch– are supposed to do so also. But nearly everyone treats the Constitution as a bygone relic. There is hardly any pretense anymore that we are supposed to be following it. It is a sad commentary.
Tis true, regrettably.
These piecemeal violations of the Constitution, Fred, add up to creating a country that does not even remotely resemble the one that was founded.