NO KINGS

Murdoch Paper Warns Supreme Court Not to Side With Trump in Key Case

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board urged the justices to strike down the president’s signature economic policy.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board warned the Supreme Court that greenlighting President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs would be a disaster for the country and its constitutional system.

As the justices prepare to hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that will decide the fate of Trump’s signature economic policy, the Rupert Murdoch-owned Journal disputed Trump’s claim earlier this week that an adverse ruling would reduce the U.S. to “almost Third World status.”

NEVERMIND!

Worried Trump, 79, Makes Total Supreme Court U-Turn

Janna Brancolini

“Mr. Trump has warned of an economic catastrophe if the Court rules that his emergency tariffs are unconstitutional,” the editorial board wrote. “The real calamity for the country and its constitutional system would be a decision that blesses Mr. Trump’s claim that every President can be the Tariff King.”

Play Video

The op-ed recognized it was “no small matter” for the justices to rule against a president’s signature policy but argued that “the constitutional stakes” took precedence in this case.

Since April, the president has unilaterally imposed sweeping tariffs on products from dozens of U.S. trading partners, using the duties as a cudgel to try to force countries to bend to his political will.

Tariffs, however, are a type of import tax paid by American companies, which must absorb the additional costs or pass them on to consumers. Article I of the Constitution give Congress authority over taxation and foreign commerce.

“Few conservatives are more deferential to presidential overseas authority than we are. But the power of the purse still belongs to Congress and can’t simply be wished away with the words ‘foreign policy,’” the Journal’s editorial board wrote. “Tariffs are taxes on Americans.”

The administration has claimed that the tariffs are legal under International Emergency Economic Powers Act—which gives president the power to regulate international commerce in response to an unusual or extraordinary threat against the U.S.—because the country is facing trade deficits and a foreign fentanyl emergency.

The Journal, however, pointed out that the U.S. has run a trade deficit for 50 years and deaths from fentanyl have been declining.

“How do these suddenly qualify as ‘national emergencies?’” the opinion editors wrote.

Already two lower courts have found that the law did not give Trump the power to bypass Congress and unilaterally impose the tariffs, but the duties have been allowed to remain in effect throughout the appeals process.

The president has adjusted the rates up and down to punish, reward, or pressure foreign countries for things that have nothing to do with fentanyl or trade deficits.

Two weeks ago, Trump slapped Canadian products with an extra 10 percent duty because he didn’t like an ad produced by the government of Ontario that quoted former President Ronald Reagan criticizing tariffs.

FINAL THROW OF DICE

Desperate Trump Begs SCOTUS to Salvage Signature Policy

Ewan Palmer

“Such arbitrary taxation without representation is precisely what the Constitution’s Framers sought to prevent by vesting power over taxes and trade with Congress,” the Journal wrote.

The Daily Beast has reached out to the White House for comment.

See more of our coverage in your search results.

ADD THE DAILY BEAST ON GOOGLE

Janna Brancolini

Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast here.