Constitutionality of Tariffs under NAFTA



Constitutionalityof Tariffs under NAFTA

Constitutionalityof Tariffs under NAFTA

Firstly,Article 1, section 8, of the Federal constitution allows thegovernment to levy tariffs on imported good so that it can generaterevenue for the country. However, the same constitution also allowsthe government to enter into trade agreements with other countriesfor the benefit of the country. If North Carolina was classified as a25% state on all textiles and furniture items imported into thestate. The tariff was strategically imposed to protect the textilesand furniture industry from foreign competition. Such protections areconstitutional. The constitution takes precedence over all othergeopolitical expediencies. Some of the main reason that supports theconstitutionality of the Tariff includes:

Strategicconsideration: the writers of the constitution intended to have acountry cooperates with other countries on matters of internationaltrade. However, section 8, intended to place the interests ofAmericans over other interests. If a trade agreement will makeAmericans in North Carolina to lose jobs due to the closure of localindustries, tariffs should take precedence because they arerightfully stated in the constitution (Nafta, n.d). Furthermore, thetariff is a strategic measure to protect the local infant countries,a step that the constitution gives the federal government the legallee way to take.

Laborconcerns: NAFTA members may not have an elaborate and protected labormarket like the United States. Thus, their cost of production offurniture and textiles could lower hence, make the goods cheaper. The constitution gives the government power to act in favor of theUnited States (Nafta, n.d). Although protectionist tariffs are quiteundesirable in an economic bloc, they are constitutional and thegovernment still reserves the right to keep or reject the terms of anagreement such as NAFTA.


Nafta(n.d). FrequentlyAsked Questions.Available at