>>176305, >>176306, >>176307, >>176308, >>176309, >>176310, >>176311, >>176312, >>176313, >>176314, >>176315, >>176316, >>176317, >>176318, >>176319, >>176320, >>176321, >>176322, >>176323, >>176324, >>176325, >>176326, >>176327, >>176328, >>176329, >>176330, >>176331, >>176332, >>176333, >>176334, >>176335, >>176336, >>176337, >>176338, >>176339, >>176340, >>176341, >>176342, >>176343, >>176344, >>176345, >>176346, >>176347, >>176348, >>176349, >>176350, >>176351, >>176352, >>176353, >>176354, >>176355, >>176356, >>176357, >>176358, >>176359, >>176360, >>176361, >>176362, >>176363, >>176364, >>176365, >>176366, >>176367, >>176368, >>176369, >>176370, >>176371, >>176372, >>176373, >>176374, >>176375, >>176376, >>176377, >>176378, >>176379, >>176380, >>176381, >>176382, >>176383, >>176384, >>176385, >>176386, >>176387, >>176388, >>176389, >>176390, >>176391, >>176392, >>176393, >>176394, >>176395
The Biden administration kept these measures largely intact, used the existing authority to layer on other tariffs, including 100% duties on Chinese electric vehicles.
Most of these tariffs continue to this day.
Because of the Section 301 measures, the effective tariff on imports from China remains particularly high, around 50%.
Section 232 tariffs would also survive an administration loss in "learning resources vs Trump."
Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the President may restrict imports determined to pose a threat to national security following an investigation by the Commerce Department.
They go on. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The provision empowers the president to address large and serious balance of payments deficits through import surcharges of up to 15% import quotas or some combination of the two. Wow!
Section 301, the basis for existing China tariffs, offers another avenue for reconstructing the tariffs that the court struck down.
One where the President enjoys wide unilateral authority. It grants the U.S. Trade Representative broad authority to investigate and remedy unfair foreign trade practices.
That's not all. The old 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act, I know we don't like it - I'm just saying what's available.
Now, it lets the President impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against U.S. Commerce as compared to other nations.
So what exactly did the Supreme Court accomplish? Nothing. It created a mess in terms of tariffs that had been paid.
The President can follow other avenues if he wishes. I would argue that constitutionally he has the authority to do what he's doing, whether people like it or not.
And Congress has the constitutional power to try and check that. And those lawyers on the Supreme Court had no business getting involved. They should have done...what I said, not because I said it, because it would have been right, which was reverse the lower court that found those tariffs illegal, tell the judiciary below, "stay out of this."
The Court should say, "we're going to stay out" of it because this really isn't justiciable in any rational or logical way. It hasn't really played out. It may never play out. It hasn't played out in 200 years and more of American constitutional history.
But the Court jumped in and they created a big splash, a big mess, and achieved nothing but chaos.