The legacy of James Madison, the architect of the U.
S. Constitution, continues to resonate in contemporary American politics.
Madison, a staunch believer in the power of tariffs as a tool for international diplomacy, saw the Constitution as a means to establish a government robust enough to defend U.S. interests abroad. This was to be achieved by imposing tariffs on nations that did not reciprocate America's aspiration for free trade.
In a recent political maneuver that would have made Madison proud, Vice President J.D. Vance cast a decisive vote, as reported by Newsweek. The Vice President's vote effectively tabled a Senate resolution aimed at revoking the emergency order under which President Donald Trump enacted his assertive and constitutionally sound tariff policy last month.
This policy, supported by all Democrats and a few misguided Republicans, including the well-intentioned but misdirected Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, has been hailed as beneficial and necessary for the nation.
Establishment Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska also voted for the resolution. However, the tiebreaking vote by Vice President Vance resulted in a 49-49 stalemate. Notably absent were Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, both of whom are considered establishment figures. Their presence, had they attended, would have presumably tipped the scales in favor of the resolution.
With this political hurdle overcome, it is prudent to reflect on why the Constitution supports Trump's tariff policy. For this, we turn to the authoritative voice of Madison himself. On April 8, 1789, the inaugural day of business for the first Congress under the new Constitution, Madison proposed a set of resolutions. These resolutions aimed to impose higher tariffs on nations that refused to agree to commercial treaties with the United States, a strategy he often referred to as "reciprocity" or "commercial discrimination."
Madison prioritized this issue even before George Washington had taken the Presidential Oath of Office. In a speech delivered 17 days later, Madison elucidated his rationale for the U.S. needing discriminatory tariffs. He cited the continued contemptuous treatment of the U.S. by its former colonizer, Great Britain.
"Let us review the policy of Great Britain toward us; has she ever shown any disposition to enter into reciprocal regulations?" Madison asked in a House speech on April 25, 1789. "Has she not by a temporising policy plainly declared that until we are able and willing to do justice to ourselves, she will shut us out from her ports and make us tributary to her? Have we not seen her taking one legislative step after another to destroy our commerce?"
Madison further argued that reciprocal tariffs were the primary justification for the Constitution. He believed that reciprocal and discriminatory tariffs were the objectives of the new government. He also explained why the U.S. needed such tariffs against Great Britain.
"Adventitious causes have drawn within the commercial vortex of her policy almost all the trade of America, and the productions of the most distant clime, consumed among us, are tributary to her revenue; as long therefore as we do not protect ourselves and endeavor to restore the stream of commerce to its natural channel, we shall find no relaxation on the part of Britain, the same obnoxious policy will be pursued while we submissively bear the oppression," he said.
In the contemporary world, if we replace Britain with China or any other nation that benefits disproportionately from trade with America, would Madison still advocate for us to "protect ourselves"? Would he not see reciprocal tariffs as a pathway to free trade and commercial agreements, one that would "restore the stream of commerce to its natural channel"? Would Madison have any doubt about the constitutionality of Trump's tariffs?
Login