[rayiner]

The power to levy tariffs was delegated to the President in 1934, when democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, over 70% of the votes in the House, and the Presidency.

Bizarre to blame “the Right” for not voting to change a system democrats created 91 years ago.

[_DeadFred_]

I'm replying to you and your comment specifically. Your support for this seems very at odds with your historical posting. Suddenly you support the Democrats delegating Congressional authority and support Republicans not asserting the Constitution's authority.

That said, how is it bizarre to blame the Right for failing to take back Congressional authority, delegated for 'emergencies', when the President is abusing that delegated authority? This is like a basic concept the 'Right' has pushed very hard, now taken to the biggest extreme by a President that it ever has. Or are we getting too much fent from that Penguin Island and it's a real emergency that requires tariffs on them to stop?

The 'right' are showing themselves for nothing but hypocrites and liars, that beleive in nothing. Not even party over country. One man's zero thought out tariff scheme from the last century over EVERYTHING.

https://www.financialexpress.com/trending/trump-tariffs-vira...

[rayiner]

Tariffs have elements of both taxes (which Congress must levy) and foreign policy (which is principally the domain of the President). So as a legal matter, the delegation of power to set tariff rates is a fuzzier case than for other delegations. Though I think on balance, given that the tariff act of 1789 incorporated a specific percentage rate, the founding generation probably saw tariff rates as being the domain of Congress.

That said, what’s the correct answer is only weakly relevant. One side vigorously defends the existence of executive-branch agencies that are supposedly “independent” of the President but somehow can make regulations with the force of law like Congress. The GOP would be committing political malpractice if they listened to those people’s quibbles about non-delegation doctrine.

Your charge of hypocrisy is misplaced. A charge of hypocrisy has persuasive force only insofar as the argument is “your rule isn’t a good one because you can’t even follow it yourself.” You can’t invoke it to insist that your opponents adhere to rules that you don’t even accept as valid. Constitutional norms are a two-way street. If you think “emanations from penumbras” is constitutional law, then I’m under no obligation to apply a different standard from that.