Rather than argue back and fourth, put your money where your mouth is like mike did. My $100 bet that the supreme court rules his tarrifs illegal still stands if you'd like in as well. unless you think the republican controlled supreme court is corrupt?
No point in arguing over it though, you can say I was defeated all you want, You feel one way, I feel another, so whats the point?
Okay, well here is a long one. Instead of betting, I'd rather be the one being bet on. Here we go...
WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?
President Trump has imposed tariffs on imports from nearly every country in the world, citing the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 as his legal authority.
Businesses are challenging these tariffs, arguing that:
- IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs
- The President exceeded his constitutional authority
- Only Congress has the power to impose taxes
The Supreme Court must now decide:
Does IEEPA give the President authority to impose tariffs?
WHY THIS MATTERS
This case has massive implications:
Economically:
- $90+ billion in tariff revenue already collected
- Potential $750 billion in refunds if tariffs are struck down
- Affects virtually every American business and consumer
- Impacts global trade relationships
Constitutionally:
- Defines the scope of Presidential emergency powers
- Clarifies the balance between Congressional and Executive authority
- Sets precedent for future uses of IEEPA
Politically:
- Tests whether emergency powers can be used for economic policy
- Determines limits on Presidential unilateral action
- Affects America's ability to respond to trade imbalances
THE CENTRAL LEGAL QUESTION
Does the word "regulate" in IEEPA's phrase "regulate importation" include the power to impose tariffs?
The statute says the President may "investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit...importation" during a declared national emergency.
But it doesn't explicitly say "tariffs."
WHY I'M MAKING THIS ARGUMENT
We believe the Supreme Court must rule that
IEEPA authorizes tariffs because:
- The text supports it - "regulate importation" naturally includes tariffs
- The precedent supports it - Courts already interpreted identical language this way
- Congressional intent supports it - Congress deliberately preserved this language knowing how it had been interpreted
- The Constitution requires it - Courts must interpret laws as written, not rewrite them
If the Court rules against the tariffs, it would not be interpreting the law—it would be
making new law based on policy preferences rather than legal text.
PREFACE: THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
THE SUPREME COURT'S CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE
The Supreme Court exists to
interpret the law, not to
make the law.
- Congress writes the laws (Article I)
- The President executes the laws (Article II)
- The Courts interpret the laws (Article III)
This is the foundation of our constitutional system of separated powers.
WHAT IS STATUTORY INTERPRETATION?
When interpreting statutes, courts must determine
what Congress meant by the words it chose.
The Supreme Court's job is to:
- ✓ Read the text as written
- ✓ Apply the ordinary meaning of the words
- ✓ Consider the context and legislative history
- ✓ Respect Congress's intent
The Supreme Court's job is
NOT to:
- ✗ Rewrite statutes to fit policy preferences
- ✗ Narrow statutes because they don't like the results
- ✗ Substitute judicial wisdom for congressional judgment
- ✗ Legislate from the bench
THE PRINCIPLE: LEGISLATIVE SUPREMACY
If Congress wrote bad law, Congress must fix it.
If a statute grants too much power, is poorly worded, or produces undesirable results:
- That is Congress's problem to solve
- The remedy is legislative amendment
- Courts must not "save Congress from itself"
As Justice Scalia famously said:
"The judge's job is to apply the text, not to improve upon it."
IF CONGRESS WANTED TO EXCLUDE TARIFFS FROM IEEPA, CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE SAID SO
It's that simple.
Congress knows how to exclude things from statutes when it wants to. Congress knows how to write clear limitations. Congress had every opportunity to clarify or restrict the language.
Congress chose not to.
THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT IS NOT:
- "Should the President have this much power?"
- "Do we like this policy?"
- "Is this good for the economy?"
THE QUESTION IS:
"What did Congress authorize when it wrote 'regulate importation'?"
Now let's examine what Congress actually did...
THE DEFINITIVE ARGUMENT: CONGRESS KNEW EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS DOING
THE FACTS (Chronological & Irrefutable):
1971 - President Nixon uses TWEA's "regulate importation" language to impose 10% tariff on all imports
1975 - Court of Customs and Patent Appeals rules in
United States v. Yoshida International: "regulate importation"
INCLUDES tariff authority
1977 - Congress holds hearings to reform TWEA and create IEEPA
- Congress KNOWS Nixon used TWEA for tariffs
- Congress KNOWS Yoshida upheld this interpretation
- Scholar Andreas F. Lowenfeld testifies that Yoshida reasoning was "thin"
- Lowenfeld EXPLICITLY RECOMMENDS changing the statutory language
Congress's Response: KEPT THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE - "regulate importation" - and transferred it from TWEA Section 5(b)(1)(B) to IEEPA Section 203(a)(1)(B)
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
Legislative Acquiescence/Ratification by Reenactment
When Congress:
- ✓ Is aware of judicial interpretation of specific statutory language
- ✓ Receives testimony recommending changing that language
- ✓ Deliberately chooses to keep the same language
→
Congress has adopted and ratified that judicial interpretation
This is
BLACK LETTER LAW in statutory interpretation.
THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION:
Congress intended "regulate importation" to include tariff authority.
If Congress wanted to exclude tariffs, they had:
- Knowledge of how courts interpreted the language
- Warning that the language authorized tariffs
- Recommendation to change it
- Opportunity to change it
They chose not to.
THE SUPREME COURT'S JOB:
The Supreme Court's role is to
interpret what Congress wrote, not to
rewrite what Congress should have written.
If the Court says "regulate importation" doesn't mean tariffs, the Court would be:
- ❌ Ignoring Yoshida precedent
- ❌ Ignoring Congress's deliberate choice to preserve the language
- ❌ Substituting judicial judgment for legislative intent
- ❌ Making law instead of interpreting it
THE BOTTOM LINE:
The text says "regulate importation." The precedent says that means tariffs. Congress knew both these facts and kept the language anyway.
Case closed.
This is textualism. This is originalism. This is basic statutory interpretation. The Court should rule accordingly.
