No. of Recommendations: 4
I mean, why not just include it right in the statute itself? "This does not include the power to impose duties or tariffs" or something of that nature.
Because that's not how statutory language generally works. It's not a narrative. You typically only include operative language, and rarely (if ever) includes language just to guide interpretation.
Don't get me wrong - the SG raised the point that the provision doesn't have any language that reins in the rather capacious power embraced by "regulate." But the Court didn't really seem receptive to that argument. They're trying to figure out if Congress actually meant to include "tariff" and "regulate," and they're not going to read much into the absence of language on that point.
