25% tariff on medium- and heavy-duty trucks entering US

The Section 232 tariffs give the president a powerful alternative to apply tariffs if the Supreme Court rules against his use of a different law to impose levies.

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court are set for November. If the Supreme Court agrees with lower courts that the president has exceeded the authority given to him by that emergency powers law, the administration will be forced to remove the tariffs that it has imposed on dozens of countries.

But tariffs issued under other legal provisions, including Section 232, would be left standing. Courts have traditionally deferred to the president on national security, and legal experts have considered the Section 232 provision as relatively secure from legal challenges.

 

So the courts would just have to prove there’s not a trade imbalance with tariffed countries then, and he would be in violation of that trade act stuff from 1974. Short of that he doesn’t need congressional approval. And what’s trade imbalance? And how much imbalance is enough imbalance for the president to legally levy tariffs against another country?

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/tariff-inclusion-process-comes-high-costs-absurd-outcomes-extra-cronyism

"a cursory examination of some of the products now covered by “steel and aluminum national security tariffs” demonstrates the problems—and absurdity—raised by the measures’ continued expansion. Products added by each successive tariff announcement have little connection to US national security, or none whatsoever. Indeed, the product list unveiled on August 15 includes goods such as concentrated dairy products (i.e., whipped cream), deodorant, silverware, buckets, office furniture, lawnmowers, baby strollers, and fire extinguishers, to name a few. (A list of the 10-digit tariff codes covered by the product list can be downloaded here.)"

 

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime...-guide-supreme-courts-decision-trumps-tariffs

"In the Trade Act of 1974, Section 122 grants the president authority to impose a tariff for balance of payments purposes, but only under strict bounds set by Congress. Section 301 envisions the US Trade Representative (USTR) entering into agreements with foreign governments to remedy foreign unfair trade practices, but only within limits and under certain conditions set by Congress."

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47679

"In addition to creating a procedure for Congress to give ex post approval to FTAs negotiated by the President, TPA legislation has sometimes given the President limited ex ante authority to enter into and implement agreements making certain limited adjustments to tariffs by proclamation. TPA-2015, for example, authorized the President to enter into and implement trade agreements with foreign countries to reduce "duties or other import restrictions" if the President determined that such duties were "unduly burdening and restricting."84 The law permitted the President to reduce tariffs in effect as of June 29, 2015, by up to 50%, subject to certain limitations.85 TPA-2015 required that the President notify Congress of his "intention to enter into an agreement" under this proclamation authority,86 but it did not require congressional approval of such agreements or tariff reductions. The previous version of TPA, the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002,87 gave the President similar authority to enter into and implement limited tariff reduction agreements without further congressional action.88

The most recent use of such proclamation authority by the President came in December 2020, when President Donald Trump entered into and implemented a trade agreement with the European Union to reduce certain tariffs pursuant to his authority under TPA-2015.89 President Trump also invoked this proclamation authority to enter into and implement the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement in 2019.90 The President currently lacks such statutory proclamation authority following the expiration of TPA-2015 in 2021."

 

Fortunately this globalist organization doesn't have much legal power. You can quote them as much as you want, but they don't have the power to do anything.

The Article I've posted is from NYT, not Fox news.

 

It's not about power - it's about knowledge of the law. Section 232 is limited in it's scope, and while courts have traditionally deffered to the executive in this area, the executive has also been very circumspect in using this authority.

From the article that you didn't link - "Eswar Prasad, a trade economist at Cornell University, said the president “seems eager to erect a new set of tariff barriers intended to circumvent and thwart any undercutting of his earlier tariffs by the judicial system.” But he added that the national security justification for tariffs was “wearing increasingly thin” in being applied to products, including kitchen cabinets and upholstered furniture."

 

It's all about power, not many care about the law these days. Especially with all of the activist unelected judges out there making pure political decisions against the current administration.

No need to know what a leftist "professor" thinks about anything.

 

Calling the Cato Institute 'leftist' is insane. As is saying "it's all about power, not the law".

 

I've called it globalist.
Who is funding them? CIA? And why do we need these "institutes"?

 

To protect the wealthy like president chump and all the Marxist officials he elected. Wait till china 100% tarrifs hit in 2025 and he realizes that china isn’t playing his childish games but is actually laughing at us.