A US Trade Court Invalidates President Trumps Tariff Policy
Finally a US court picks up a copy of the American Constitution, reads it and finds it impossible to find any Constitutional basis for President Trumps announcements concerning Trade and Tariffs. The phrase that comes to mind is The Emperor’s New Clothes, finally someone points out the rather obvious fact that the Emperor is not wearing anything.
I think anyone considering American history might have wondered whether the United States would tolerate a President arbitrarily introducing new taxes - because tariffs are a tax - without eventually objecting. America is founded on the principle of taxation only being allowed if first debated and voted in by a group of citizens chosen to represent the people.
What does President Trump really want? My best guess would be a universal 10% tax on all goods purchased by Americans that come from a foreign country. If this is the case it would be helpful if he could say so in clear, direct language. This he could propose to Congress, and if they agree with the policy it can happen. That would be straightforward and have the virtue of being transparent and constitutional.
The whole saga reminds me of the 1935 Supreme Court ruling that invalidated a key part of Roosevelt’s new deal (I can’t remember the book published 20 years ago that discussed this in detail, but Wikipedia has a good article on A.L.A. SchechterPoultry Corp. v. United States)
Hopefully the US Trade Court that has made this ruling will cause President Trump to work with Congress to obtain authority to negotiate trade deals and introduce taxes on imports from foreign countries in a Constitutional way.
It’s taken me all morning to remember, but the “sick chicken case” (A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States), that caused the Supreme Court to strike down a big chunk of Roosevelt’s New Deal in 1935 was brilliantly described by Amity Shlaes in her book The Forgotten Man which took a hard look at The Great Depression & questioned how effective the New Deal was.
Relevant here I think because there always seemed to me to be something phoney about Trump’s Tariffs & the way he presented his arbitrary policy ideas. It’s almost as if someone in the White House had warned him that the legal basis for what he was doing was weak & likely to be comprehensively thrown out by a court who had been taught constitutional law. Like the 1935 chicken case….
The great virtue of the US constitution is that it is written in language that can be understood by anyone who has a reasonable education, explaining what the US government may, and may not, actually do.