The Supreme Court issued their opinion on Trump’s use of tariffs. In a 6-3 decision, The Court ruled against Trump’s use of the IEEPA as unconstitutional.
Thomas and Kavanaugh filed dissenting opinions. Alito and Thomas joined with Kavanaugh.
Jackson was off the rails, again, in her concurrence.
We interpret the constitution’s plain text and this nation’s tradition of regulations. The meaning of the constitution is as it was understood when it was adopted. The meaning of amendments is as it was understood when the amendment was ratified. The meaning of the 14th Amendment is as it was understood when it was ratified. Its meaning when it was ratified was that the constitution, as amended, applies to the states, meaning what it was understood to mean when adopted and ratified.
In other words, the 14th Amendment is understood to be incorporating the federal constitution, not as redefining the understanding of the constitution or previous amendments.
Jackson feels that it is important to look at and evaluate the legislative history of a regulation, rather than the plain text and how that text was understood.
The Question
Given all of that, how do you feel about this decision?
I have not read the opinion. I will say that it is likely this was the correct decision, when evaluating Trump’s actions under the plain text and this nation’s historical traditions of regulations.
first off- what is IEEPA????
I remember when people spoke and wrote the english language.
one of my issues is everyone assumes everyone is up on the lingo….
IF the conservative judges ruled against it and they haven’t been paid off, then they are right to do so.
in light of the ginormous corruption everywhere it remains to be seen.
imo the best thing to do is live life without engaging in politics of any kind. all politics does is ruin all it touches. this Country is so full of division and hate right now….
Part of being a conservative, I believe, is being willing to accept decisions that I don’t happen to like if they are in line with law. You don’t just “make crap up.” [1]
.
I believe that’s the case here.
.
[1] Well, at one point somebody did, because that’s how we got the rule / law / whatever in the first place. (Similarly all words are, in the end, made-up words.) But once established as a framework we agree to live by, and with an agreed-upon processes to change it, then, yeah, you have to stop making stuff up all on your own. That leads me into thoughts about whether, at age 18 or something around there, people should be given a choice to either formally accept the nation’s laws and traditions, or leave. Sort of like Confirmation is for Catholics, although with a little more free will involved.