By BARBARA HANEY
I am writing in my capacity as a private citizen and as an economist to respond to some comments from a recent event titled, “Bridge the Divide” held at the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly Chambers. As a former faculty who taught political economy at UAF, I was unable to attend due to Open Meetings Act constraints. It would have been nice to be able to attend and directly address issues raised, but alas, state statute restricts the number of elected officials that can attend an event, and other assembly members had indicated to me that they were going.
However, it is my understanding, based on media reports, that at that meeting an argument was advanced that President Trump’s tariff policies are unconstitutional. At first blush, that seems correct, but a bit of research and experience suggest the President is acting within his legislative authority.
In 1890, Congress passed a tariff act that delegated authority to the President to establish tariffs on selected goods. In 1892, Field v. Clark, challenged the authority of the Congress to delegate powers to the president under the Tariff Act of 1890. The Supreme Court upheld the 1890 Act and the President’s role in fulfilling a Congressional mandate.
In 1934, Congress delegated additional authority to the executive branch through the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. This act gave the president the ability to change tariffs rates by 50% and negotiate bilateral trade agreements without additional approval from Congress.
There are also other statutory provisions that allow the President to engage in unilateral tariff authority. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows the President to modify tariffs if they compromise national defense. These tariffs could be implemented without a sunset date.
Then there is the Trade Act of 1974. Section 122 allows the president to enact temporary tariffs to address large and serious balance of payments deficits or other situations that present fundamental international payments challenges. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the president to implement an 8-year tariff if the International Trade Commission determines a domestic industry issue is threatened by a surge of cheap goods. Section 301 of the 1974 act allows the President to act on recommendations by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to authorize tariffs, up to 4 years, on foreign countries that restrict U.S. commerce in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable,” or “discriminatory” ways. There are other provisions available to the president under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
Thus, it seems that the President is operating under the authority granted long ago by Congress. Of course, tariff law is hardly the bailiwick of a gender studies faculty that were presenting. That is something an economist would be most likely to have some familiarity. Too bad there wasn’t one on the panel.
Barbara Haney received her PH.D in economics from the University of Notre Dame and formerly taught in the economics department at UAF. Her opinions are her own.
Great analysis, Barbara.
It’s also worth noting which political parties held the reins of power when these major expansions of presidential tariff authority were enacted:
1890: President Benjamin Harrison (Republican) signed the original Tariff Act into law under unified Republican control of Congress.
1892: Though Harrison remained in office, Democrats took the House, setting up a shift in trade politics that would soon usher in Grover Cleveland.
1934: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the greatest Democrat president in any political and imagined universe, and overwhelming Democratic majorities passed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, vastly expanding executive authority over trade.
1962: Under President John F. Kennedy, the second greatest Democrat president in any political and imagined universe, and a Democratic Congress, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act was passed—still used today to justify tariffs in the name of national security.
1974: In the wake of Watergate and Nixon’s resignation, the Trade Act of 1974—with powerful tools like Section 201, 301, and 122—was passed by a Democratic Congress during Gerald Ford’s presidency, perhaps the slowest moving Republican president in anyone’s universe.
1977: With President Jimmy Carter and a Democratic-controlled Congress, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was passed, giving the executive sweeping authority over foreign commerce during national emergencies.
The broad executive tools President Trump used were not invented by him—they were handed to him by decades of legislative action, much of it authored, endorsed, and enacted under Democratic control.
So for those who now recoil at the use of strong executive trade powers, be careful what you wish for. The very mechanisms now criticized were largely built with bipartisan, and often Democrat-led, enthusiasm for a strong executive. What you build in your moment of power can and will be used by those you oppose.
This contributor has given convincing evidences of a president’s authority to set import tariffs. I have no doubt that she is correct, and who could doubt that some D.C. leftists are now preparing to petition a partisan U.S. district court judge to enjoin the president to withdraw the revised tariffs. Standing by to read that news story.
Hasa, tax increases (tariffs) are in fact what most leftists want. So why are any so called conservatives cheering on this tariff madness?
What we now know is that the average home price will increase by almost $9,200 due to these taxes.
The average price of a new car is going to be many thousands of dollars higher- and new cars were already getting expensive.
We import 97% of the shoes we wear- and we can either go barefoot, or pay Trumps new shoe tax.
Basic food like coffee and bananas are going to get much more expensive. Maybe we should grow bananas and coffee here in the USA? Except we can’t. We don’t have the right climate. So what is it that Trump is accomplishing by taxing these products? The answer is he’s just making life more miserable, and expensive for Americans with his massive tax hikes.
Trump may call himself a Republican, but he governs like the Democrat he was for most of his life.
Nobody in their right mind believes an economist. They get it wrong every time.
I didnt see anything about being right or wrong but simply pointing out honest information.
As the title of the article points out it is strictly her view and we thank her for that.
True facts are difficult things for Democrats to deal with. That’s why invented facts, lies and disinformation are the Democrats stock in trade.
I haven’t seen Dr. Sowell get it wrong.
Common sense needs to become more common. Thank you for honest information.
I just can’t understand why would you not want fair trade. It’s a fact that it benefits everyone. Could it come down the the Trump derangement syndrome.?
Barbara Haney is an economist, not an historian or a constitutional scholar. I have covered tariffs in previous columns. Congress has NO AUTHORITY to delegate an authority that specifically belongs to them. You won’t find it anywhere. But you CAN find the 10th Amendment, which prohibits it.
Imagine if Congress gave the president power to pass a law. It would be ridiculous. But a tariff (identified as an impost or duty) is a law as well. What Trump is doing is likely necessary to un-do the farce of the 1994 NAFTA and GATT, which created this trade imbalance. However, it is Congress that needs to repudiate NAFTA & GATT, not the president.
I would also point out that presidents have been given the de-facto power to declare war, which is far, far more serious than tariffs. Congress voted the war-making power to a president in the event of a nuclear missile barrage, but an amendment should have been passed for that. But let us look at Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I & II, and all these endless airstrikes hither and yon. These are not incoming nukes. They are all utterly unconstitutional. No argument is possible to say otherwise. Once you allow unconstitutional actions to occur in one place, it is hard to prevent it in others. We have reached the point where we amend the Constitution by BREAKING it, so long as it is … acceptable. It then assumes its own momentum and tradition. We live in a post-constitutional society.
Robert: you are quite right. Two of the panelists are constitutional law scholars who are experts in the field. Dr. Haney is neither a historian nor an expert on the constitution. If she had attended the panel discussion, she would have learned quite a bit about the constitution. Her claim that the Open Meetings Act prohibited her from attending is just BS.
Missile strikes, without first declaring war by Congress, has become habitual for decades, the latest country being Yemen, targeting civilians is un Constitutional. Along with creating a proxy army, training and funding that army, along with the entire countries’ government, deploying missile systems serviced, targeted and fired by American servicemen into another country, deploying officers to plan and order operations, along with servicemen deployed in actual fighting is definitely un Constitutional.
So with approximately 170 Houthi attacks on U.S. Naval vessels and 145 on merchant shipping, Congress seems oblivious to what’s happening. Should we send Iran more pallets of cash to Iran for Yemeni drones to keep it from being a ground war?
I’m not sure that claiming the Legislature cannot legislate is a very compelling argument.
Hi Robert,
While you and I may have an opinion regarding the delegation clause, the fact of the matter remains is that it was delegated by Congress and it was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the degree of discretion is bounded by legislation. If you think the legislation is bad, then advocate for it to change. However, as it stands at the present time, it appears that the President has broad authority granted by Congress and approved by the SCOTUS. I am not advocating one way or another in this piece, simply that the president is operating within his legal authority.
Barbara–You claim that “As a former faculty who taught political economy at UAF, I was unable to attend due to Open Meetings Act constraints. It would have been nice to be able to attend and directly address issues raised, but alas, state statute restricts the number of elected officials that can attend an event.”
This is hogwash. Nothing in the Open Meetings Act prohibits former UA faculty from attending a forum where three current faculty are panelists. Nothing in the Open Meetings Act prohibits an elected official from attending any public gathering that is not a discussion of a subject that the body is authorized to act and set policy on. As the FNSB Assembly is not authorized to act and set policy on the US Constitution, as an Assembly member, the OMA would not apply even if all Assembly members were present.
Why would a conservative, real Republican, or free marketeer attend this anti-Trump rally at the Assembly chambers? UAF Political Science Department, Dermot Cole of the Newsminer, Jr. Hopkins and other extreme left-wingers of sundry importance all gathering at the citizen’s Chambers to whine and gripe about Donald J. Trump? Who’s paying the electrical bills and costs of security for this rally? Certainly not those who are so emotionally and psychologically affected by Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Of course no Trump supporters showed up. Only the crazies who would have you believe that the Constitution doesn’t apply when Republicans are in charge. All of these phonies and hypocrits will have to live with their TDS for another 44 months. And by then, Trump will have changed the Constitution again and he’ll get another 48 months in office. Maybe by then, the Democrats will have found a vaccine for TDS and their party will mandate vaccinations.?
Stay tuned for more Democrat meltdown as they destroy themselves.
North: you are incorrect. Several Trump supporters were present at the panel discussion, including FNSB Assembly member Brett Rotermund, FNSB mayor Pruhs, and the GOP AK vice chair, Cheryl (Cam) Markwood. There were other Trump fans in the audience as well, including the woman who first spoke after the panel presentations. Several other Trump supporters who were there have engaged extensively on online discussions to argue against the panelists’ claims. The event was not a rally; it was a panel discussion.
The event seemed more like a stylized Mock Trial that was scheduled to follow activist. Gin up the crowd, hold a mock trial- only thing missing was an effigy
Playbook out of the French Revolution
Thanks Barbara … very concise
Free speech seems to apply only when the democrats are in charge, or when they show up in mob like numbers and behave like mobsters. The rest of us hard working citizens are usually silenced by the democrats when we exercise our right of free speech and offer counter opinions. That’s ONE of the reasons why we the majority put Trump in charge. We don’t need to show up to these public protests. The left wing media and
the democrats up in Fairbanks can report on these demonstrations all day. Who cares. The rest of us support Trump and will show up on a needs be basis to exercise our Second Amendment rights.
Usually, Democrats spike their gatherings with lots of drugs. The old hippies of the 60’s and 70’s from the UAF still complaining and still living in the past. The ones too old and feeble to show up on their own get their brainwashed children and grand children to attend. Free beer? Brownies with pot? That usually gets them to show up.
Sam, don’t forget the hook-up factor too. Democrats act like dogs sniffing each other at these protests, hoping to meet someone they haven’t been with before. It’s true! It could be LGBTQ or straight. As long as the olfactory senses and pheromones are still working, Democrats remain on the prowl.
If what I’ve read is correct, and I haven’t independently verified it but I’ve read about it numerous places, the United States imports just a little over 10% of our economy. These tariffs, don’t impact every good that is imported as there are many exceptions that are not included in these tariffs. It seems like the majority of goods that will have tariffs added are in the cheap goods column of the ledger, while there are no doubt a few higher priced items included. So these tariffs will impact somewhere less than 10% of our economy at somewhere around 10% to whatever the moving target percentage is for cheap junk from China.
While some folks are trying to make political hay, and I don’t necessarily blame them for doing so, the wealthiest 1% of Americans own 50% of the stocks, the wealthiest 10% own 93% while the poorest 50% own about 1% of all stocks. The average American isn’t swayed by the the recent stock market correction, even if the news or hysterical repeaters of the news claims otherwise.
There is approximately $9,000,000,000,000.00 (9 TRILLION dollars) of our national debt that needs to be refinanced or paid off this year and we can’t afford to pay it off. There’s also another $19,000,000,000,000.00 (19 TRILLION dollars) maturing in the next four years for a total of $28,000,000,000,000.00 (28 TRILLION dollars), something must be done as the status quo is unsustainable. Thanks to the Obama/Biden/Harris Administration interest rates spiked and inflation went on a runaway train. Lowering interest rates will save BILLIONS of dollars on the debt that must be refinanced.
The previous generations have enjoyed spending the birthright of their children and their children’s children, now the bill has come due and those that are still alive and complaining about having to somehow help their children and their children’s children get out of the mess they made shows a complete lack of awareness and unscrupulous greed.
Congress should reassert their authority under Article I of the US Constitution. Time to take the car keys away before Trump he finishes his Thelma and Louise adventure
Oh “Frank”…
You’re getting hysterical lately.
And mean.
Do you need a puppy?
Apparently Steve-O does not understand the 50% off Americans living paycheck to paycheck now will buy 10% less in goods and services due to import fees. Republicans in Congress want to use tariff fees to off set tax breaks for $Billionaires. Donald Trump believes when you pay a barber $15 for a haircut, you are running a $15 deficit that you must make up for with $15 of punishment to the barber. You get what you elect
Tell us all how this differs from raising the minimum wage? Is there any product or service that will not go up because of a minimum wage hike? (HINT: The answer is no.)
To all those who are unaware of what a strawman argument is, this is a classic strawman argument with a little ad hominem attack to boot. Haircuts and Donald Trump do not an argument make, it’s simply absurd to conflate paying for a haircut (the exchange of a service for an agreed upon payment) and a tariff on a good from a foreign country. And while I know it is a Democratic talking point it does not take away from the fact that it does not address the actual issues at hand. In short, do better Frank I know you have it in you to make worthwhile points but you really failed this time.
Frank erroneously assumes that 50% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck will now stop purchasing 10% of the goods and services they previously purchased simply because there is a tariff on it. Frank, here’s a newsflash for you…people living paycheck to paycheck do not purchase goods and services based upon tariffs, they purchase them based upon need. The vast majority of goods and services that people living paycheck to paycheck purchase will not be affected by these tariffs. Those goods and services that are affected will go up slightly in cost, if anything people living paycheck to paycheck will purchase less of these goods or find ther goods to replace them. The good news that is so frequently lost upon the naysayers is that people living paycheck to paycheck might one day be able to get a good paying job, add to their wealth and be able to buy more than just what they need. Of course the left doesn’t want wealth and prosperity they prefer servitude and people begging for government handouts. The real value of wages plummeted under the Obama/Biden/Harris Administration, we can’t continue down that ruinous path and something must be done since we already know the results of these failed policies.
I’m still trying to figure out the lefty logic when it comes to the rich. On one hand the talking point is that the stock market is crashing and this is impacting the rich and super rich so the average American should be upset, but on the other hand the e-vile Republicans and Trump are cutting taxes only for the rich…so which is it? Do Trump and the Republicans only serve the rich or does the fact that working Americans are abandoning the faile policies of Democrats tell us anything about who is serving the average working class American? Seems like the Democrats are grasping at straws while fighting through a wet paper bag trying to figure out what their messaging is to me.
Thank you Robert Bird, I have been saying the same thing evert since the passage of the 1973 War Powers Act/ Resolution. The United States Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. So said John Adams.
The 1890 Act that is the center of her argument was repealed 130 years ago. It also caused a depression that lasted 7 years.
Every Act and piece of legislation in the article is skewed or entirely misrepresented.
Trump, the former Democrat, has now unleashed the largest tax increase in American history. The markets have responded accordingly, and crashed. The Alaska Permanent Fund has lost billions.
A recession is now much more likely.
Congress needs to act to take away the authority for any president to raise taxes as Trump has. Begich and Sullivan need to come out of hiding and stand up for conservative principles.
If one looks at the actual formula the incompetent Trump has offered, it has nothing to do with another nations actual tariffs. It is a division of relative trade surplus/deficits between the US and the respective nation targeted. A few more factors are then used before the final product (tariff) is created. The economist whose work was borrowed by the Trump team has claimed they got the formula massively wrong.
Aside from this “formula” Trump wants a 10 percent national sales tax. This is an entirely different aspect of this discussion. In the end business passes these government mandated costs on to consumers, and this is inflationary. Biden reduced the value of the US dollar by over 20 percent, the worst inflation we’d seen since Carter. Now Trump appears to be unconcerned about any of this damage as he goes golfing.
I’ve never trusted Trump. He’s not a conservative. He increased the US debt by $8 trillion in his first term. He thinks government should control and tax the trade created by private businesses, and now he’s unleashed the biggest ax increase in US history.
I miss the time when Reagan was president, and conservatives could offer coherent arguments.
Members of the MAGA cult don’t care about facts. Trump has unleashed massive taxes that hurt our economy and members of the cult fan the flames.
Well that rant by M sure didn’t age well…
Let see… Trump reverses course for 90 days on the most insane tariffs, but still imposes a 10 percent national sales tax on all imports, and hits some of our important allies with 20 to 24 percent tariffs.
Conservatives are opposed to these massive tax increases. Trump cult members… not so much.
Congress needs to act, and stop this madness.
Maybe now I can get MY cheap plastic crap into Walmart.