From a friend who imports stuff from Europe…
As we all sit and think about the tariff decision today, let us all remember why this is being litigated in the first place. Anyone who has read a contract knows that the first part quite often contains definitions.
The law that is the Administration’s basis for the tariffs said that the President could “regulate” trade in certain circumstances. “Regulate” was not defined. So most of this was about whether the word “regulate” included tariffs.
All of this could have been avoided if any of the mediocre (or worse) lawyers in Congress had defined the word “regulate.” Instead billions of dollars of tariffs have been collected and industry has been put in turmoil because the idiotic mediocre lawyers in Congress could not define their terms.
So the next time you ask for these utter fools to pass a law to save the country, please remember this moment.
[Follow link, ignore unflattering picture of Trump (damn that had to be AI generated), hit CTRL-F, type “biden” ]
The NPR remembers this moment:
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1251096758/biden-china-tariffs-ev-electric-vehicles-5-things
Some would argue that allowing more inexpensive EVs would advance the [ahem] ostensible agenda of the Demi-crats. So many stupid moments, so few aging neurons left. My wife laughed at some of my stupid Greta jokes today (“I…am a Karen.”), so maybe I’ll remember that and our nice walk outside today.
It’s amazing how much of this really comes down to sloppy drafting. The whole debate over whether ‘regulate’ includes tariffs shows how a single vague word can ripple into billions in costs and years of litigation. Makes you wonder how many other laws are sitting on shaky foundations just waiting to cause similar chaos.
@Phil
Your summary above kind of “leaves some dots unconnected”. The Politico article really doesn’t summarize the legal argument well, one would really have to look at the ruling (127 pages):
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105.159.0_1.pdf
the statute (a trim 5 pages, less than 1/25th the size of the ruling!):
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-91/pdf/STATUTE-91-Pg1625.pdf
I think this is the text with the “regulate” in that the ruling deals with:
1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA “investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void,
prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use,
transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation
of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with
respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any
foreign country or a national thereof has any interest;”
IANAL, though it really seems like Trump’s stretching the law to gain tariff imposing power was met with nitpicking to check his power. In any case, that’s a lot of terms to define, I imagine many have usual and customary definitions, and we are in a time where few things are usual or customary. And the Supreme Court will likely have its own opinion. We’re lucky they haven’t developed AI summarized bills drafted by AI, where the congressman clicks Yes or No on a EULA like form for their vote.
—
So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, good night
I hate to go and leave this pretty sight
— The Sound of Music, “So Long, Farewell”
I followed up with the author of the above and he says that the law is IEPPA, passed in 1977. So the members of Congress who might be criticized for this failure to define are nearly all dead. Perhaps today’s Congress is much smarter! (for example, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and AOC.)
Phil, something unsaid in your post, but important for the hoi polloi to understand: what many Americans and American companies seem not to understand is that they simply have NO birthright to sell their products and services in countries outside the U.S.! And that is why all these countries justifiably have set up extensive tariff systems and used exclusionary tactics to rid Americans from their markets. It’s been this way ever since WWII. No reason to change it or do anything about it. In Europe particularly, Marxist socialism isn’t a two-way street and we should accept that and move towards it here. Now, I need to get back to important happenings here on Martha’s Vineyard as we get ready to celebrate Labor Day and all those that toil at our estate here to make my life a bit better.