August 24

According to the US constitution, only Congress has the power to tax. Yet, President Trump has raised tariff taxes multiple times. What gives Trump the authority to raise taxes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congress has chosen on multiple occasions to delegate that power to the executive branch. See Trump tariffs#Legality. It will remain this way unless and until congress chooses to take that power back. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution says Congress shall have the power. It doesn't say "only Congress" or "exclusive power". It's one of those concurrent powers. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? Concurrent powers refers to powers shared by states and the federal government. Congress does have sole power to tax; tariffs are not the same as taxes. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get that. But once you share a power with 50 state governments (and figure something out with the tribes and territories that uphold parts of your constitution), it's hard to justify jealousy with a fellow federal branch, especially when it claims to need it "for an emergency". Citizens with booking agents pay a sort of income tax, too, and if they're beloved national superstars, one could argue their scheduled appearances are even good for general welfare. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

States have tariffs??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about taxation power, you rascally rabbit. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congress's power to tax is granted in the same sentence that grants power to create tariffs, although the word "tariff" is not used. As for whether this power is exclusive, see Nondelegation doctrine and the cases linked therefrom. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know the differences between "taxes, duties, imposts and excises". —Tamfang (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least one librarian suggests they might have just been throwing down a bunch of terms to cover the bases so no one could claim, "but this is not a tax, it's a ____". I think if you go by dictionary definitions, it would be, respectively, 1) Taxes on people (Yes! It's circular); 2) Taxes on property entering/leaving the country; 3) Synonymous with tax, but usually means 'duty'; 4) Tax on things made domestically. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's an article that lists some of the acts of Congress that granted the President to raise tariffs. You can ignore the article if it's biased or not, and just look at the acts. It's also a year old, so any acts that may have happened after are not included. Also, as the article pointed out, to nullify a tariff, they would basically need a veto proof number in Congress, something they don't have. [1] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is really not any different than any other law. The way the U.S. system works is that the legislature is in charge of passing laws, then the executive is in charge of making the laws happen. Thus, Congress might pass a law that says that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to set maximum emissions standards for coal power plants. The EPA is thus enabled by Congress to set those standards and enforce them. Congress, in this case, has passed laws that give the President the authority to set tariffs, and then it is his responsibility. I don't really know why people find this all that different from every other law that has been passed in history by Congress. This is pretty much how most of them work. --Jayron32 12:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the Nondelegation doctrine explains "this Court has deemed it "constitutionally sufficient" if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority." The doubt arises whether the last condition has been met. Some laws have been overturned for not putting clear limits on the Executive branch. Rmhermen (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the more germane sentence is later in the article "Only rarely has the Supreme Court invalidated laws as violations of the nondelegation doctrine" --Jayron32 17:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]