2006 (100)
2007 (142)
2008 (123)
2009 (93)
2010 (67)
2012 (58)
2019 (57)
2022 (100)
2023 (112)
2024 (86)
从最高法院在民主党人状告特朗普政府（与其他国家）的关税协议违反美国宪法案的法庭辩论中，法官们的提问和发言来看，尤其是这其中最高法院大法官罗伯茨的问题，到底是谁在支付新征的关税？很明显美国公民也支付了相当的关税收入。按照宪法，向美国人民征税以及向其他国家征税的责任和权力是在国会。
但是很明显，目前或一直以来，美国国会很难就向美国人民征税达成统一。同时，美国国会也没有能力和资源与其他国家就互惠关税进行谈判。但是，联邦政府中有一位经由国会认证的贸易代表的。而贸易代表即代表国会也代表美国联邦政府，与其他国家进行贸易谈判。这其中就包括了贸易政策和互惠国和互惠关税等等事宜。所以联邦政府也具有一定的权力代表与其他国家，并代表国会，就贸易问题与其他国家进行贸易谈判的。并且这也不是先例。其他的例子比如以前的北美自贸区谈判，以及世界贸易组织和CPTPP的谈判等，都是由联邦政府牵头，当然最终的决定权是在国会。
特朗普总统在竞选期间是把他要对其他国家征（增）收关税写进他的竞选纲领中的，并且特朗普总统赢得了包括所有摇摆州在内的选举胜利（大胜）。所以增加对包括中共国，欧盟，加拿大墨西哥以及东南亚等一概国家的关税是代表民意的。你也可以把它看作是一种新民意。而这新民意也是具有一定的法理依据的。
记得在奥巴马总统竞选期间，他提出包括全民医保在内的竞选口号。赢得选举以后，他以全民医保是新民意为理由，要求国会通过奥巴马医保。但是奥巴马医保法案里，强制要求美国公民购买美国联邦政府的产品（医保）是很明显违反美国宪法的。就此，共和党人向联邦法院提出了诉讼。此案一直上诉到最高法院。最后最高法院在裁定奥巴马医保是否违宪时，共和党的大法官罗伯茨临阵倒戈，他加入其他四位民主党法官，以五比四的投票结果，最终维护奥巴马医保平安过关。
所以，最高法院（尤其是大法官）是有屈就民主党人并迎奉所谓新民意的历史的。现在为什么不能也屈就共和党人，也迎奉新民意呢？！
同时，正如特朗普总统指出，如今联邦政府半年多新政下来，已经征收了将近一万亿美金的关税，毕竟这其中的绝大部分是来自其他国家。并且这些收入还在继续增加中。面对美国联邦政府的巨额亏损（联邦财政赤字），这钱怎么还，从哪里拿钱来还？！
所以，我认为最高法院的裁决一定会折中，也必须折中。即，要求联邦政府将目前谈判取得的各国关税协议悉数交与国会，由国会一项一项（各国国家）表决通过（或不通过）成为法律。如果没有通过，国会应该进一步投票表决是放弃（abandon）该协议呢，还是指令特朗普政府（与某特定国家）继续谈判。
这应该是最高法院的最终选择（没有其他可能）。
haohao88 发表评论于 2025-11-09 17:47:29
相信任何一个头脑清醒的法官都不会做此荒唐事
也同意博主的猜想，高院可能会要求总统向国会寻求批准，就像宣战权属于国会而不属于总统那样，总统用兵后在一定时间内要向国会报告并获得国会批准。
......
你这个逻辑是一团浆糊。皇帝太监和国会都没有急，是一些进口商急了，告到了下级法院，下级法院说我们也不急，可是衙门开着，你击鼓鸣冤来告，我就得审，查了好些文件认为川总越权，所以判川总败诉，川总不服，认为最高院都是我们的人，咱还能输了官司不成，于是上诉到最高院，才走到今天这一步
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.
对头。回头看，中共国的所谓“改开”也是从增加关税保护自己企业开始的。当自己的企业强大以后，然后逐渐降低关税。美国要再工业化，增加关税是必不可少的。谢谢。
关税的本质就是保护本国企业，退一万步也扯不上是对本国人民征税。如果加关税购买者被收税商品还卖得动，俺就奇怪厂家会仁慈到不加价。俺的理解是现在猪帮左棍烂人太多，凡是川总的政策，无论多么正确伟大，包括砍药价改进医保，它们都会千方百计死缠烂打。
既然那个紧急法案允许总统切断贸易，怎么连温和采取对等关税则不行？再退一万步，如果法官们认为关税权在国会，那么他们操什么心呢，让国会去管好了。事实上是皇帝不急太监急，国会根本没出声，一帮子法官要主导行政上的外贸关税吗？
同意。不过，如何劝说特朗普去竞选第三任呢？他已经明确表示没有这方面的想法了，你有点儿妖言惑众的嫌疑，呵呵。
高院辩论的焦点显然不在“紧急状态法”的援引上。该法既然存在必有其道理。谢谢。
当然不是。进口商向出口的中共国企业要求降价，比如沃尔玛就要求中共国出口商降价承担至少一半的关税（而上一次是中共国出口商全部承担的，指10%）。而这也是为什么中共国将产业移到东南亚的原因。换句话说，进口商压价，然后支付关税。要不然，习近平为什么要对等加税呢？！
赞！