It can be conveniently contended that Preemption, whether be it in the realm of strategy, political diplomacy or even economic diplomacy happens to be the au currant order of the day. When the “Grandiose Order” fluctuates, then the regulator state ideally has to come to the rescue and act in the veneer of a “philanthropist”, which is exactly what the doctor ordered for United States of America. As an attendant fact, the United States Supreme Court has delegitimized the tariff tirade as rendered anew by President Donald Trump.

The manner in which the Tariffs were latched onto by President Donald Trump as a deft instrument of foreign policy showcases a few facts and American conceptualizations. The American Supreme Court has raised a few fundamental questions which amount to be constitutional in nature.  One needs to delve inside the oeuvre of the, “Playing for keeps” of the domestic American firmament in order to comprehends what the US Supreme Court decision stands for and reflects in a finality.

If one seeks redemption through history, then, one will be informed that the perennial legal and procedural tiff exists between the seat of Presidency and the US Congress since the times and tides of American independence. The Court has judged that the powers such as the prerogative to declare war and impose tariffs does not rest with the US President but only the able Congressmen can legislate about it and order it. 

US Supreme Court, raises anew the question of Presidential powers. Still, as we hark back to the historicity of it all, it can be argued that United States of America has always since the halcyon days of its Founding fathers, always excluded the, “Other” in tandem with the impact of laws as the Sedition and Libel bills, where in the non-patriots amongst the American hoi polloi have been caught and reprimanded since the neophyte days of the American Republic. The revenue generation phase of the American tariff and trade cycle also points to the fact that the Prez cannot collect taxes and duties all alone which has been deemed illegal and illicit by the US Supreme Court. The court has commented that the Prez had overstepped his powers.

Still, one may zero in upon the response of the White House in the larger context of the debate. He has already warned in a stroke of Presidential gumption that the US Government will not refund the capital without another long drawn legal battle. Prez Trump has pointed that other regalia exists in the constitutional context which can rationalize the tarriff imposing powers of the American President and this legal odyssey will augment trade, manufacturing and investment in the larger nation.. It can be argued that the legal poser concerns the age old dictum of separation of powers which monitors that no branch of the establishment becomes too powerful for comfort. The other contentious element in the entire womb of the deliberations and  imperial decisions is the fact that how can the US Prez declare a state of emergency all alone which serves as a pretext for imposing charges on a plethora of allies and friendly nations including India , Brazil and others.  The Prez’s insistence is upon the factoid of the largesse of national debt which led to a national emergency and had to be intervened in to contain it from reaching catastrophic proportions.

Also, as an attendant fact, no American President has ever utilized the IEEPA and Trump happens to be the first sole purveyor of this economic and diplomatic vagary. Still, on a moral standpoint, the President as the dutiful head of the state can intervene like akin to the taxes and imposts, the President has a large say in deciding such litany of serious matters and domestic concerns which now has an impinging impact on the future of the Global polity and economics.

As the tariffs have been declared illicit, it has embedded gains for New Delhi. Though the trade deal talks between the twin interlocuters have been deferred for the time being stil would be much more saner an attitude to accept the Supreme Court decision as a reprieve for nations such as India. The India US interim agreement on the trade deal did reduce the  tariffs on New Delhi’s entrepreneurial zeal from 50% to 18% and this facet immensely benefits the textile, footwear, lather, gems and agricultural sectors and the American reductions are amongst the lowest rates which the Americans have facilitated for any nation. In the larger emblematic light of the trade deal between both the nations, its still a matter of guessing that will New Delhi stymie all oil purchases from Russia. New Delhi has also promised that it will buy in 500 billion worth of goods from US as part of the new trade regime.

Lets, go back to what the US Constitution contends about the entire dilemma. The new law on the Presidential powers pithily informs us that a blanket tax and impost on all the nations might not stand the challenge in the Court but the President can impound when the domestic industry and manufacturing is left in a lurch. These are both the sides of the US Supreme Court’s intervention. The Gibbons case in the corridors of the US Supreme Court pinpoints that  the power two regulate commerce and the power to impose taxes are two different ball games all together. The Gibbons case explicitly states that the power to regulate the trade is completely different from taxation. 50 USC  1702 has a slightly different story to tell. It says that the International Economic and Emergency powers act gifts to the President  the powers to, “ regulate, the importation and the exportation.”

An argument in the fence of the US Presidential powers can be that both the TWEA and the IEEPA which were eneacted in 1995 and 1997 respectively,  that the United States vs Yoshida Intl Inc grants the powers to regulate to the President and its in this judgement that the Court does not bring out a categorization between regulation of commerce and taxation. Stil, the rider in the American legal furnace remains that articles, 246 and 265, mention that the powers of taxation are a Congressional prerogative and the President cannot impose taxes sans Congressional statutory authorization. The War Powers act also curtailed the President but were utilized by the White House in the face of national emergency culminating in the dictum of national interest.

END OF ARTICLE