Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week! | How To Invest
Search Politics
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week! | How To Invest
Search Politics


Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (22) |
Author: albaby1 🐝 HONORARY
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 75974 
Subject: Re: Trump corners SCOTUS
Date: 11/06/25 9:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
I mean, why not just include it right in the statute itself? "This does not include the power to impose duties or tariffs" or something of that nature.

Because that's not how statutory language generally works. It's not a narrative. You typically only include operative language, and rarely (if ever) includes language just to guide interpretation.

Don't get me wrong - the SG raised the point that the provision doesn't have any language that reins in the rather capacious power embraced by "regulate." But the Court didn't really seem receptive to that argument. They're trying to figure out if Congress actually meant to include "tariff" and "regulate," and they're not going to read much into the absence of language on that point.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (22) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds