[tptacek]

No, setting tariffs is a regulatory and economic power, and even in a hard unitary executive model, the President doesn't have plenary power over tariffs. This is literally an enumerated power of Congress, which makes it hard for me to understand why you started down this path on this thread.

[rayiner]

That’s an argument that the Tariff Act of 1930 is unconstitutional, which is a different argument.

[tptacek]

No, it's an argument that your interpretation of the act is (pretty clearly) unconstitutional.

[rayiner]

I’d love to live in a world where non-delegation was such a robust doctrine. But “you can set tariffs if you find that other countries are being unfair” (paraphrasing) is a more than intelligible principle supporting Congress’s delegation.

[tptacek]

The case before the Court of International Trade failed on non-delegation and major questions grounds. But my point isn't that SCOTUS will affirm the lower court here (though: they will), but rather that your logic upthread doesn't hold. You said "the President makes foreign policy, not the courts". Plain category error.

[rayiner]

Trump is knee-deep in negotiating with foreign countries on trade deals using the tariffs as leverage. And the court must purported to kneecap him. Of course it’s an exercise of the President’s foreign policy powers, and that’s why Congress gave the President this authority over tariffs in the 1930 act.

The major questions issue shows how out on a limb this court is. There’s currently a circuit split on whether MQD even applies to the president.

[abduhl]

>> Trump is knee-deep in negotiating with foreign countries on trade deals using the tariffs as leverage.

This statement is completely speculative. There is no evidence that substantive negotiations are happening on any trade deals.

>> There’s currently a circuit split on whether MQD even applies to the president.

The president is not a party to this suit so I don’t understand what this statement has to do with anything.