内容摘要：as investors fretted about the trade turmoil dimming the industry’s prospects.

as investors fretted about the trade turmoil dimming the industry’s prospects.

Congress has made some motion toward reasserting its authority. Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, for instance, have introduced legislation that would require presidents to justify new tariffs to Congress. Lawmakers would then have 60 days to approve the tariffs. Otherwise, they would expire.But their proposal appears to stand little chance of becoming law, given most Republican lawmakers’ deference to Trump and the president’s veto power.

Yes, and some of his top aides swiftly promised to do so. Still, to do it legally will take longer and he may not be able to reinstate every duty that he previously imposed, or threatened to impose.In fact, the court laid out a bit of a road map, pointing out that if Trump wanted to impose duties to reduce U.S. trade deficits, he should use a different law that was expressly intended for that purpose — specifically, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Yet that law only allows tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days.The broader point of the court’s ruling is that since Congress has the power to impose tariffs under the Constitution, it can only delegate that power to the president under specific laws the president has to follow.

There are several Trump could use, including Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, but that does require an investigation of another country’s trade practices to establish that they either violated a trade agreement or engaged in unfair trade practices.Another possibility is Section 338 of the Trade Act of 1930, which allows tariffs of up to 50% for countries that have discriminated against U.S. imports. It doesn’t require a government agency to investigate anything. And Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act allows duties to be imposed of up to 50%, but only after an investigation that establishes that imports have harmed a specific U.S. industry. That law was used to slap tariffs on some solar products in 2018.

If the courts uphold Wednesday’s ruling and the import taxes are struck down, the money will be refunded back to the U.S. companies that paid it.

Otherwise, it goes to the U.S. Treasury, like personal and corporate income taxes, to pay for government expenses. Tariff revenue collections have spiked in recent months, and were on track to reach about $22 billion in May. That is up from $6 billion in February, before most tariffs were imposed. Economists at Nomura Securities estimate that the tariffs struck down by the court have raised a total of about $40 billion to $60 billion so far.“There is no easy access to a doctor’s office. You need an appointment. They have limited hours,” the store owner and pharmacist said. “So any time any child or adult — whoever is sick — where are they going to go first? To the pharmacy.”

In rural areas, drugstores often serve multiple roles for their communities, with pharmacists seeing regular customers more than a doctor does, said Megan Undeberg, a community pharmacy expert at Washington State University. That means they may be the first to notice signs of things like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease and suggest the patient seek help.“You’re the smoking cessation counselor, you’re the suicide prevention counselor,” she said. ”You know just about everything about everyone, but it’s confidential.”

A few weeks before the CVS in Herscher, Illinois, closed in early March, farmer Kip Harms picked up a muscle relaxer for a back injury. He asked the staff if he could take it with Tylenol.Harms said he’ll have other options in the rural area that’s nearly 80 miles south of Chicago, but it won’t be the same.