2006 (100)
2007 (142)
2008 (123)
2009 (93)
2010 (67)
2012 (58)
2019 (57)
2022 (100)
2023 (112)
2024 (86)
從最高法院在民主黨人狀告特朗普政府（與其他國家）的關稅協議違反美國憲法案的法庭辯論中，法官們的提問和發言來看，尤其是這其中最高法院大法官羅伯茨的問題，到底是誰在支付新征的關稅？很明顯美國公民也支付了相當的關稅收入。按照憲法，向美國人民征稅以及向其他國家征稅的責任和權力是在國會。
但是很明顯，目前或一直以來，美國國會很難就向美國人民征稅達成統一。同時，美國國會也沒有能力和資源與其他國家就互惠關稅進行談判。但是，聯邦政府中有一位經由國會認證的貿易代表的。而貿易代表即代表國會也代表美國聯邦政府，與其他國家進行貿易談判。這其中就包括了貿易政策和互惠國和互惠關稅等等事宜。所以聯邦政府也具有一定的權力代表與其他國家，並代表國會，就貿易問題與其他國家進行貿易談判的。並且這也不是先例。其他的例子比如以前的北美自貿區談判，以及世界貿易組織和CPTPP的談判等，都是由聯邦政府牽頭，當然最終的決定權是在國會。
特朗普總統在競選期間是把他要對其他國家征（增）收關稅寫進他的競選綱領中的，並且特朗普總統贏得了包括所有搖擺州在內的選舉勝利（大勝）。所以增加對包括中共國，歐盟，加拿大墨西哥以及東南亞等一概國家的關稅是代表民意的。你也可以把它看作是一種新民意。而這新民意也是具有一定的法理依據的。
記得在奧巴馬總統競選期間，他提出包括全民醫保在內的競選口號。贏得選舉以後，他以全民醫保是新民意為理由，要求國會通過奧巴馬醫保。但是奧巴馬醫保法案裏，強製要求美國公民購買美國聯邦政府的產品（醫保）是很明顯違反美國憲法的。就此，共和黨人向聯邦法院提出了訴訟。此案一直上訴到最高法院。最後最高法院在裁定奧巴馬醫保是否違憲時，共和黨的大法官羅伯茨臨陣倒戈，他加入其他四位民主黨法官，以五比四的投票結果，最終維護奧巴馬醫保平安過關。
所以，最高法院（尤其是大法官）是有屈就民主黨人並迎奉所謂新民意的曆史的。現在為什麽不能也屈就共和黨人，也迎奉新民意呢？！
同時，正如特朗普總統指出，如今聯邦政府半年多新政下來，已經征收了將近一萬億美金的關稅，畢竟這其中的絕大部分是來自其他國家。並且這些收入還在繼續增加中。麵對美國聯邦政府的巨額虧損（聯邦財政赤字），這錢怎麽還，從哪裏拿錢來還？！
所以，我認為最高法院的裁決一定會折中，也必須折中。即，要求聯邦政府將目前談判取得的各國關稅協議悉數交與國會，由國會一項一項（各國國家）表決通過（或不通過）成為法律。如果沒有通過，國會應該進一步投票表決是放棄（abandon）該協議呢，還是指令特朗普政府（與某特定國家）繼續談判。
這應該是最高法院的最終選擇（沒有其他可能）。
haohao88 發表評論於 2025-11-09 17:47:29
相信任何一個頭腦清醒的法官都不會做此荒唐事
也同意博主的猜想，高院可能會要求總統向國會尋求批準，就像宣戰權屬於國會而不屬於總統那樣，總統用兵後在一定時間內要向國會報告並獲得國會批準。
......
你這個邏輯是一團漿糊。皇帝太監和國會都沒有急，是一些進口商急了，告到了下級法院，下級法院說我們也不急，可是衙門開著，你擊鼓鳴冤來告，我就得審，查了好些文件認為川總越權，所以判川總敗訴，川總不服，認為最高院都是我們的人，咱還能輸了官司不成，於是上訴到最高院，才走到今天這一步
From the questions and comments made by the justices during the Supreme Court hearing in which Democratic Party members sued the Trump administration (and its agreements with other countries) over the claim that its tariff policies violated the U.S. Constitution, one question stood out — particularly from Chief Justice Roberts: "Who is actually paying these newly imposed tariffs?"
It is clear that American citizens are also bearing a considerable portion of the tariff burden. According to the Constitution, the power and responsibility to impose taxes on the American people, as well as on other nations, lies with Congress.
However, it’s also clear that — now and historically — it has been very difficult for Congress to reach consensus on taxation affecting the American people. At the same time, Congress lacks both the resources and the capacity to negotiate reciprocal tariff agreements with other countries. That role falls to the U.S. Trade Representative, an official confirmed by Congress, who represents both Congress and the federal government in trade negotiations with other nations.
These negotiations include trade policy, reciprocal trade relationships, and mutual tariffs. Thus, the federal government does hold certain powers to represent both the United States and Congress in trade discussions with other nations. And this is not without precedent. Previous examples include the NAFTA negotiations, as well as talks surrounding the World Trade Organization and the CPTPP, all of which were led by the federal government — though ultimate approval rests with Congress.
During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump explicitly included in his platform the plan to impose (or increase) tariffs on other countries. After winning the election — including all major swing states — Trump’s tariff policies could be seen as a reflection of public will. In this sense, his tariff measures represent a new form of popular mandate, which also carries a degree of legal legitimacy.
Recall that during President Obama’s campaign, one of his key promises was "Universal healthcare". After winning, he urged Congress to pass the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), arguing that it represented a new popular mandate. However, the provision in the law that "required" Americans to purchase a federal product (health insurance) clearly appeared to violate the U.S. Constitution. Republicans brought a lawsuit challenging the law, which made its way to the Supreme Court.
When the Court finally ruled on the constitutionality of Obamacare, Chief Justice Roberts — a Republican appointee — unexpectedly sided with the four Democratic justices, creating a 5–4 majority that upheld the law.
Thus, the Supreme Court — especially its justices — has a precedent of "yielding to Democrats" and embracing so-called "new popular mandates". The question now is: why shouldn’t it also yield to Republicans and this new popular will?
As President Trump has pointed out, after more than half a year of new trade measures, the federal government has already collected nearly one trillion dollars in tariffs — the vast majority of which comes from other countries — and this revenue continues to grow.
Given the enormous federal budget deficit, the pressing question is: how will the U.S. repay its debts, and where will the money come from?
Therefore, I believe the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will — and must — be a "compromise". Specifically, it will likely require the federal government to submit all the negotiated tariff agreements with each country to Congress, for Congress to vote on them one by one — either approving or rejecting each as law.
If Congress fails to pass a particular agreement, it should then vote again to decide whether to "abandon" that agreement or instruct the Trump administration to continue negotiations with that specific nation.
That, in my view, will be the Supreme Court’s ultimate and inevitable choice — there is no other possibility.
對頭。回頭看，中共國的所謂“改開”也是從增加關稅保護自己企業開始的。當自己的企業強大以後，然後逐漸降低關稅。美國要再工業化，增加關稅是必不可少的。謝謝。
關稅的本質就是保護本國企業，退一萬步也扯不上是對本國人民征稅。如果加關稅購買者被收稅商品還賣得動，俺就奇怪廠家會仁慈到不加價。俺的理解是現在豬幫左棍爛人太多，凡是川總的政策，無論多麽正確偉大，包括砍藥價改進醫保，它們都會千方百計死纏爛打。
既然那個緊急法案允許總統切斷貿易，怎麽連溫和采取對等關稅則不行？再退一萬步，如果法官們認為關稅權在國會，那麽他們操什麽心呢，讓國會去管好了。事實上是皇帝不急太監急，國會根本沒出聲，一幫子法官要主導行政上的外貿關稅嗎？
同意。不過，如何勸說特朗普去競選第三任呢？他已經明確表示沒有這方麵的想法了，你有點兒妖言惑眾的嫌疑，嗬嗬。
高院辯論的焦點顯然不在“緊急狀態法”的援引上。該法既然存在必有其道理。謝謝。
當然不是。進口商向出口的中共國企業要求降價，比如沃爾瑪就要求中共國出口商降價承擔至少一半的關稅（而上一次是中共國出口商全部承擔的，指10%）。而這也是為什麽中共國將產業移到東南亞的原因。換句話說，進口商壓價，然後支付關稅。要不然，習近平為什麽要對等加稅呢？！
讚！