In case you’ve been under a rock, we have this president who loves tariffs. I don’t mean he thinks they’re good. I mean, he is actively trying to figure out how he could stick his Anthony Wiener in tariffs and make little orange tariff babies—it’s unsettling.
Here’s the issue, tariffs are a tax on goods, under another name. The only thing making them different is unlike a sales tax that applies to everything except tax exempt stuff, and are applied at the point of sale, tariffs only apply to foreign goods, and the tax is applied at the point of import.
Tax Man Max from Schoolhouse Rock
With that in mind, I’ll take you back to grade school government. Who has the power to levy taxes? Not the fucking president, that’s who. There’s this group of 535 assholes (subject to change) we call congress—that’s their bag, baby.
Despite the fact that the GOP control the Senate and the House of Representatives, Trump refuses to work to get congress to enact such tariffs—he’s decided he must do it himself by fiat.
Trump, not certain whether he’s a fucking king or not, decided to figure out if there was some law, any law, that would give him the power to impose tariffs at will, and he fell on The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
This law essentially says, if the president declares there to be an emergency, he has certain powers to deal with that emergency. The phrase in the statute he relies on to impose tariffs says:
The President may regulate importation or exportation of any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.
I won’t go into how stupid this is, but suffice it to say, I have a trade deficit with Walmart. Not because they’re taking advantage of me and creating an emergency, they just have more things I want from them, than they want from me.
This is a global economy, and trade deficits are a natural part of it. They’re certainly not a fucking emergency. Not to mention, this was often done because someone from that country annoyed him. To argue he was somehow methodical and precise in this, would be ridiculous.
So, anyway, the folks at Learning Resources, Inc. buy some shit to sell here in the US that comes from lands far far away, and Trump’s tariffs are making it hard for them to stay profitable. So they dusted off their copy of IEEPA, and were like, “I don’t see the word tariff in this mother fucker anywhere.”
And with that, they decided to challenge our Tariffer-In-Chief for enacting tariffs they believe he does not have the power to enact. They argue that the major questions doctrine (remember that from cases like Loper Bright?) should certainly apply here—that these tariffs affect a shit ton of folks, and it’s a power the president wasn’t explicitly given. Therefore, fuck that asshole.
As per usual, a lower court decided against Trump. Also, as per usual, Trump got his wittle feewings hurt, and appealed. I told you, he really wants to have a little orange tariff baby—he ain’t fucking around.
So off we go to SCOTUS, and to see if they’ll give him an unearned victory.
The Arguments: Team Trump
First up, we have the tender strains of John “Gravel Voice” Sauer. I don’t mean to pick on the guy, but I think him and RFK Jr. went to the same vocal coach.
John Sauer
Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: On April 2, President Trump determined that our exploding trade deficits had brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe. He further pronounced that the traffic of fentanyl and other opioids into our country has created a public health crisis, taking hundreds of thousands of American lives. President Trump has declared that these emergencies are country-killing and not sustainable, that they threaten the bedrock of our national and economic security, and that fixing them will make America strong, financially viable, and a respected country again.
Counsel John Sauer
Due to IEEPA tariffs, President Trump has negotiated agreements worth trillions of dollars with major trading partners, including most recently China. Unwinding those agreements, he warns, would expose us to ruthless trade retaliation by far more aggressive countries and drive America from strength to failure, with ruinous economic and national security consequences. In Dames & Moore against Reagan, this Court held that IEEPA’s sweeping and unqualified language grants the President’s actions the strongest presumption of validity and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation. Yet plaintiffs argue that tariffs, IEEPA’s least blunt and most nimble tool, are virtually the only tool that Congress did not grant the President to deal with foreign emergencies. That is wrong. The phrase “regulate importation” plainly embraces tariffs, which are among the most traditional and direct methods of regulating importation. And plaintiffs concede that IEEPA authorizes quotas and other tariff equivalents. The major questions doctrine does not apply here. IEEPA confers major powers to address major problems on the President, who is perhaps the most major actor in the realm of foreign affairs. And the nondelegation doctrine casts no doubt on IEEPA because Congress may assign the President broad authority regarding the conduct of foreign affairs, where he enjoys his own inherent Article II powers. I welcome the Court’s questions.
So he begins with a “ends justify the means” statement. That’s not how any of this works, when it comes to presidential powers.
Then, his tactic is to argue some perceived success of Trump’s tariffs, as if that’s justification. He’s taking a marketing approach to lawyering. Novel, but seems stupid.
Anyway…Sauer picks a tenuous argument that somehow, IEEPA giving the president the power to regulate importation should be meant to include tariffs. This is a stretch, but we’ve been here before with Sauer and Trump in the presidential immunity case, where I thought his arguments looked like trash, and yet that fucker won.
It’s worth noting, he used a pretty logically fallacious argument, saying that somehow the other side is saying that the only tool not available to Trump is tariffs. They absolutely did not say that. Quite the strawman he built there.
He also argues somehow that tariffs are the least harmful way to regulate trade, as opposed to bans or embargos. But that’s also just him giving an unsubstantiated opinion.
There are an infinite number of ideas the Trumpster Fire could have come up with to regulate trade. That’s how new ideas work. Most of them were potentially open to him. So the idea that tariffs were the only tool, is absolutely ridiculous. Even if Trump isn’t exactly a creative genius, he has people around him who could have come up with something new.
Justice Thomas the elder chimed in and asked how the major questions doctrine doesn’t apply here.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
He first started by arguing that congress certainly inferred a president to have some major authority on certain issues, apparently setting the stage for why they inferred this major issue to him.
This SCOTUS has almost always struck shit down for “major questions doctrine” reasons in the past. So Sauer attempting to short circuit that philosophy seems ill advised.
He then went on to say that congress infers such major powers, but “keeps an eye on that shit” just in case.
He argued some how, The Constitution’s Article II powers over foreign affairs often give him such massive authority.
What the fuck? Is he stoned?
Before he could get to his next point, Justice Kagan chimed in and was like, “Bro, do you have a single example here? Taxation is an Article I power delegated to Congress, and tariffs are part of that shit. So what article II power is so fucking huge, that you think it justifies him taking Article I powers away from Congress? Are you fucking mad?”
He tried to argue that if shit were all cool and the gang with these foreign entities we trade with, IEEPA wouldn’t apply. But somehow because Trump decided trade deficits were an emergency, he can then use said declaration to do something about that shit, because he has constitutional authority over foreign affairs.
Ballsy!
He went on to say, and I’m not making this shit up…
We don’t contend that what’s being exercised here is the power to tax. It’s the power to regulate foreign commerce. These are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental.
Sauer has balls the size of Jupiter to look at these nine justices dead in the eye, and bold-faced bullshit them.
Justice Sotomayor, wholly unimpressed with Sauer’s argument, chimed in with what is essentially, “Are you fucking nuts?” The power to tax resides with congress. So you argue tariffs are not a tax to circumvent that. But clearly, it’s a fucking tax. It raises revenue for the government, for fuck’s sake.
She then went on to questions his “it’s regulatory” claim. She’s like, “You’re raising revenue, man. If you wanted to limit goods coming from China, you just fucking limit them with quotas or an embargo. Your dumb fucking boss is the one who decided to make revenue off of it.”
Official Portrait of United States Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor Click for Biography
She also blasted Sauer on the notion that somehow the president just arbitrarily deciding something is an emergency doesn’t all of a sudden give him new powers to enact sweeping taxes. Otherwise, every fucking president would be doing that shit.
Sauer, answering the major questions doctrine point first, somehow felt his iron clad defense was that the court had never applied the major questions doctrine to foreign policy. That’s it. That’s his brilliant fucking response. We’re talking about a tax, which he know kills his whole claim, so he’s trying his level best to reframe it as a foreign policy issue.
Sotomayor decided to hit him with the ole hypothetical. She’s like, “So Biden could have just declared that student loan debt was an emergency, and then slapped a tariff on foreign oil to pay for it? He’s declared an emergency, and it would have went against foreign goods?
Sauer stammered a bit without getting to an answer before Sotomayor, still like a dog with a bone, was like, “I can point to at least 16 fucking laws here where congress wrote in the word tariff or tax into a law when they wanted that to be an option. But they didn’t in IEEPA. So what logic do you have to suggest that they inferred it here when they didn’t explicitly write it in.”
Sauer pointed to a different case (Algonquin) where the court allowed then president Gerald Ford to set licensing fees on foreign goods if the secretary of the treasury argued that a country was importing so much of something that it created a national security issue. This relied on section 232(b) of the Trade Expansion Act of 1974 (TEA). They were concerned about oil imports, specifically.
38th President of the United States – Gerald Ford
But the Algonquin opinion was a narrow ruling, and they even stated that allowing this specific thing shouldn’t lead future courts to give license to the president to do similar shit.
They allowed this because the specific law in question delegated quite specifically, the power to the president to regulate the import of these goods, which they felt must include tariffs, licenses, etc.
Frankly, this is so far the only good argument I’ve heard from Sauer, and it’s still a little sketchy because the court literally said they should not consider this ruling to allow broader presidential authority, which is exactly what Sauer is doing here.
Also worth noting, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (TEA) they’re citing, during peacetime, requires the Secretary of Commerce to do a formal investigation and show a national security risk, before the president can impose fees on those goods.
Trump has used this law to put tariffs on steel, aluminum, and oil before, so he has relied on it as well as IEEPA he’s using now. However, many of the tariffs Trump has imposed are political in nature, and therefore wouldn’t fall under TEA, if you were wondering.
Justice Jackson took issue with Sauer wanting to compare the Trading With The Enemy Act (TWEA)’s interpretation to IEEPA.
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
Congress enacted this legislation (IEEPA) with the intent of preventing the President from having unlimited powers in this area, and you’re asking us to now interpret that statute consistent with an understanding that Congress wanted to allow the President to do pretty much whatever he wanted in this area.
You see, TWEA was passed in 1917—WW1 times, but as time went on, congress felt it gave the president too much power. So IEEPA, passed in 1977, was meant to restrain some of that, and better define what the president could and could not do during an economic emergency.
Sauer argued that the phrase “regulate importation” must carry with it, the power to impose tariffs. He also places a lot of weight that the duty is due “at the border” as if to say, it’s not a tax on the people, because it occurs at the border, not within the border. Hint: That’s not a thing.
Justice Barrett was next to hit Sauer with a question. She kept it simple. She asked:
General Sauer, can I just ask you a question? Can you point to any other place in the Code or any other time in history where that phrase together, “regulate importation,” has been used to confer tariff -imposing authority?
Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Sauer really stumbled on this one, as he could only cite the court’s rulings on Algonquin, and similar instances, but not where Congress specifically conferred this power with the “regulate importation” text.
After citing precedents several times, even Sotomayor had had enough, and point blank asked him:
Could you just answer the Justice’s question?
But all he had was unrelated precedents. He kept arguing that foreign tariffs are regulating imports, as if somehow he can’t believe they don’t understand that.
Again, IEEPA (1977) amended TWEA (1917). As you might imagine from the name, this was about a president, during war time, being able to ban imports from someone who’s our enemy. But then in 1933, FDR got it amended to broaden it from “only during war time” to “during any national emergency.” Let’s just say, presidents abused that shit, so IEEPA was formed to reign it back in. This was what Justice Jackson was complaining about above.
So congress did a little “copy and paste” shit with TWEA to IEEPA. To that point, counsel Sauer argued:
Let me put it this way: You look at all nine verbs together and you’re looking at a spectrum of powers from the most sort of negative, “nullify,” “block,” “prohibit,” “void,” to the most affirmative, “direct,” “compel,” and then also powers in between that are more intermediate, “regulate,” “investigate,” and so forth. So the natural common -sense inference from that grammatical structure is the intention of Congress to sort of cover the waterfront.
So his argument is that because congress used that same language in IEEPA, surely they still meant for the president to be able to impose tariffs, and with all the negative, position, and ambiguous words, he can’t see how tariffs aren’t just a part of that.
But in response to this, Justice Kagan said:
Well, possible, General, possible, except Congress did take out a whole bunch of verbs. It took out “confiscate,” “vest,” “hold,” “use,” “administer,” “liquidate,” “sell,” which were in the prior statute. And crucially, what it doesn’t have here is anything that refers to raising revenue. So it has a lot of verbs. It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.
Justice Sotomayor chimed in with:
Official Portrait of United States Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor Click for Biography
I’m sorry, counsel, it doesn’t say “regulate tariffs.” It says “regulate importations and exportations.” You agree that they can’t put tariffs or taxes on exportations constitutionally?
He agreed.
So she was like, “Then why the fuck should we assume it means to confer the power to tariff imports?”
Again, his only argument is that regulating imports must include the power to tariff.
Sotomayor, still skeptical asked:
Why is it that Congress has always used “regulate” and “tax” together in the Code? Are you telling us that with respect to its use of “regulate” in other statutes, the taxing reference is superfluous? They didn’t need to do that?
His argument was that going back to TWEA and it’s power to tariff, there’s pedigree here.
But IEEPA replaced TWEA because TWEA was being abused. They were literally reigning in presidential power. So by what logic would such a huge power like tariffs somehow be casually left in place, even though they didn’t put that language in there?
Justice Roberts really hammered Sauer on the idea that tariffs are taxes, and it seems pretty sketch that congress just gave that away to the president, when IEEPA was intended to reign in presidents.
And all this is somehow based on the idea that imposing tariffs is the main way of regulating imports? It’s just not. There’s embargos, quotas, product bans, and any new shit the president could think up. Sauer’s argument that tariffs is the only way, is pretty ridiculous.
Sauer argued that revenue raising was just “incidental.” That the goal, is to get people to stop buying foreign goods and only buy American. In that case, no revenue would be raised, making these tariffs regulatory.
Justice Sotomayor jumped in and asked, “if that’s your fucking goal, then why the fuck didn’t that orange prick just bar importations altogether. If that’s his fucking goal, embargos and bans are much more effective than tariffs. It literally fixes the problem overnight.”
Justice Jackson then pointed out that TWEA, via a senate report, explained that it was trying to control or freeze property transactions where a foreign interest was involved. It didn’t say a fucking thing about raising revenue. She also points out that this was a wartime provision, to prevent trading with an enemy country. How the fuck then, does this justify tariffs on our friends?
Sauer again reiterated it wasn’t about raising revenue, even though that’s all Trump talks about it being for. Then went on to say, that quotas are basically the same as tariffs, which they’re certainly fucking not. I think his tactic of assuming the justices are morons isn’t going to favor him here.
If I may riff on this a bit. He keeps arguing quotas were part of the language, and they're similar to tariffs, so he doesn't see the harm. This is stupid. quotas just limit amounts of goods that can come in. Tariffs add taxes to goods that are paid by the American people. The idea that Sauer and other Trump cronies refuse to acknowledge that, is insultingly stupid.
Up to now, most of the arguments were statutory. Meaning, does the IEEPA statute give the president the power to enact tariffs?
But justice Kagan then moved on to a constitutional question about whether congress can delegate it’s power to tax to congress.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan
This is sometimes referred to as the nondelegation doctrine. A philosophic principle that basically says congress cannot give away it’s powers to the president, without clear guidelines.
Sauer and Kagan had quite the lengthy exchange here, but ultimately he relies on the idea that this is merely about foreign affairs, not taxation. Again, hitting the ole, “It’s a regulatory tariff, not a tax” argument.
Next up was Justice Gorsuch. I’m just gonna say this now, I think he takes the major questions doctrine, and the nondelegation doctrine pretty damn seriously. He launched into a very polite tirade, which included this…
What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war, to the President?
Sauer responded that he didn’t think they could do that, and Gorsuch literally just responded, “Why not?”
He’s not wrong. That’s kinda Sauer’s argument.
Sauer tried to go back to IEEPA and it’s “limitations” which are kinda a joke. He’s talking about how the president has to declare an emergency first, and shit like that. But the executive branch controls that, so there’s no real guardrails on that shit. The president can just call it an emergency for whatever reason they want, and they’re off to the races. There’s no limits on how much he could tariff, as evidenced by his 100%+ tariffs he hammered on some countries, nor is there a limit to how long the tariffs can be in place, in IEEPA, remember, tariffs aren’t mentioned at all.
So it’s a pretty ridiculous argument from Sauer, which he also made with Justice Sotomayor, who pointed out that there’s nothing really stopping the president from declaring an emergency.
But Gorsuch nipped that shit in the bud. He responded…
I’m not asking about the statute. General. I’m asking for your theory of the Constitution and why the major questions and nondelegation, what bite it would have in that case.
He wants to know if congress has that right to delegate such power at all in any statute. This is a swing for the fences on the nondelegation clause, which basically says Congress can’t delegate it’s constitutional powers at all.
Gorsuch then asked:
You’re saying there’s inherent authority in foreign affairs, all foreign affairs, so regulate commerce, duties, tariffs, and war. It’s inherent authority all the way down, you say. Fine. Congress decides tomorrow, well, we’re tired of this legislating business. We’re just going to hand it all off to the President. What would stop Congress from doing that?
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch
Counsel Sauer argued that this would be too far. That congress can delegate within certain parameters, they can’t just give it away entirely.
Gorsuch then asked:
Okay. You emphasize that Congress can always take back its powers. You mentioned that a couple of times. But don’t we have a serious retrieval problem here because, once Congress delegates by a bare majority and the President signs it—and, of course, every president will sign a law that gives him more authority—Congress can’t take that back without a super majority. And even—you know, even then, it’s going to be veto-proof. What president’s ever going to give that power back? A pretty rare president. So how should that inform our view of delegations and major questions?
The reason justice Gorsuch argues they’d need a super majority, is because presidents love power. Any attempt to change the law, even if it passed the house and senate, would likely get vetoed by any president who wanted to exploit it. So there would then need a super majority to overcome a presidential veto if congress tried to take back some of IEEPA’s delegated powers.
Gorsuch is playing 3D chess over here.
Sauer conceded this point, but essentially argued it’s not impossible. Especially if the sitting president agrees with the change they’re trying to make, even at the expense of their own power. He cites in 2023 where congress ended the 2020 declaration from Trump that COVID was an emergency, and Biden signed it.
It’s not a horrid example, but it’s not a great one, either. COVID was no longer a pandemic, and if Biden had tried to exercise some huge authority to combat COVID at that point, it would have been political suicide. So no reason not to let that one go, from Biden’s perspective.
Gorsuch snuck in another principle on him when he asked if all tariffs were foreign affairs. I think the heart of this question is to determine if there’s some conflict between a president’s job in foreign affairs versus congress’ job in levying taxes.
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch
Sauer agreed they largely are, while arguing that there’s a spectrum, so to speak, and that regulatory tariffs are more foreign affairs related, and revenue raising tariffs are more domestic policy, and that was the end of that.
Justice Kavanaugh wanted to know, why haven’t any other previous presidents, since IEEPA was enacted, used it for tariffs.
Counsel Sauer said they reviewed 69 emergencies. (Side note: I think Sauer just had a prop bet with his buddies at the firm to see if he could sneak in saying 69 during oral arguments.) None of them were really the kind of emergency a tariff would solve, in his estimation, as opposed to this trade deficit “emergency,” which seems well-suited for tariffs.
Justice Barrett asked Sauer to elaborate on Gorsuch’s question about getting power back. You see, the 2023 example was a case where COVID was clearly no longer an emergency, so Biden had no reason to continue it.
But in this case, Barrett is saying, if we had a president who was relying on IEEPA like President Trump is, surely you understand congress could never get him to sign a law banning him from using it the way he wants to use it, right?
He largely seemed to not want to argue against this, without conceding, since it doesn’t help him.
Then justice Barrett asked about why Trump needed to attach so many tariffs to so many countries, including many who are our friends like Spain and France.
Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett
He answered by saying they’re so broad, because the emergency is so broad. He didn’t cite any data to support this, I guess we’re just supposed to take Trump’s word on it.
The Arguments: The Petitioners – Learning Resources Inc. (and other Private Parties)
Up next is Counsel Neal Kumar Katyal, who opened with this.
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Tariffs are taxes. They take dollars from Americans’ pockets and deposit them in the U.S. Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone. Yet, here, the President bypassed Congress and imposed one of the largest tax increases in our lifetimes.
Many doctrines explain why this is illegal, like the presumption that Congress speaks clearly when it imposes taxes and duties and the major questions doctrine.
But it comes down to common sense.
It’s simply implausible that in enacting IEEPA Congress handed the President the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process, allowing him to set and reset tariffs on any and every product from any and every country at any and all times.
And, as Justices Gorsuch and Barrett just said, this is a one-way ratchet. We will never get this power back if the government wins this case. What president wouldn’t veto legislation to rein this power in and pull out the tariff power?
IEEPA is a sanction statute. It’s not a tax statute where Congress gave away the store. Congress knows exactly how to delegate its tariff powers. Every time for 238 years, it’s done so explicitly, always with real limits.
IEEPA looks nothing like those laws. It uses “regulate,” which Congress has used hundreds of times, never once to include tariffs. And it lacks the limits of every other tariff statute. And that is why, even though presidents have used IEEPA to impose economic sanctions thousands of times, no president in IEEPA’s 50-year lifetime has ever tried to impose tariffs.
Neal Kumar Katyal
And the President bypassed statutes that do address tariffs, like Section 122 for large and serious trade deficits, but that imposes a clear guardrail, 15 percent cap, 150-day limit. This is Youngstown at its lowest ebb. If the government wins, another president could declare a climate emergency and impose huge tariffs without fines without floors or ceilings, as Justice Gorsuch said. My friend’s answer?
This administration would declare it a hoax. The next president may not quite say that. This is an open-ended power to junk the tariff laws and is certainly not conveyed by the word “regulate.” I welcome the Court’s questions.
Justice Thomas asked about how embargoes are somehow OK, but tariffs aren’t.
Counsel Katyal advised that tariffs are taxes, they raise revenue. Embargos are a hard stop in trade altogether. Maybe they have similar goals, but very different actions.
Justice Roberts was up next, and asked about the fact that tariffs are foreign facing, and that foreign affairs is the purview of the president, not congress. So should they support Trump’s case here?
Counsel Katyal agreed with most of that, but stated that the constitution never gave the executive the power to raise revenue, even while at war. He then quoted Justice Robert Jackson from a 1952 case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, where President Truman, in order to fend of a labor union strike he felt would create a national emergency, attempted to seize control of the nation’s steel mills. In a 6-3 loss, Truman was advised to go fuck himself.
In that opinion, Justice Jackson said,
Emergency powers tend to kindle emergencies, so it’s essential the public may know the extent and limitations of the powers that can be asserted and persons affected may be informed from the statute of its rights and duties.
His point being, we can’t just let the president declare an emergency, and then citing that emergency, do whatever the fuck he wants. Otherwise, every president will declare everything an emergency, then do whatever the fuck they want. As an example? Donald J. Trump, and his bullshit “emergency” tariffs.
Justice Kavanaugh wanted to understand if Katyal agreed that if congress had specifically said the president could issue tariffs in IEEPA, that it’s constitutionally permissible.
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Counsel Katyal agreed, assuming there are limits that are clearly defined.
He didn’t agree that president could just put a 300% tariff on someone and call it an emergency, for fuck’s sake.
He pointed out that Trump imposed a 39% tariff on Switzerland, and not only are they an ally, they actually buy more goods from us than we do from them. So how the fuck does that make sense as a trade emergency?
Justice Alito, seeming skeptical of Katyal’s argument asked, “What if Congress told the president to regulate parks. A park is particularly busy. So could the president have them charge an admission fee to reduce visitor counts?
He said, if it raises a fee, then no. Congress needs to explicitly give him that power.
Alito then went on to show the power of logic has left him by asking an inane question. He asked, what if they’re not revenue raising tariffs? His example was, a tariff is enacted but not imposed until 90 days if the country doesn’t comply. So if they do, no tariff is collected.
How the fuck does that work? He’s asking if it’s OK as long as no one ever violates it? That’s fucking stupid. I hate to be disrespectful to Alito, I’ve been there where I couldn’t come up with a great example, but still, it’s a pretty nonsensical question.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito
Counsel Katyal pointed out that Trump’s brief, and statements publicly suggest it’d raise 4 trillion smackaroos. I’d call that revenue.
He went on to point out, that if the president is saying a trade imbalance is an emergency, then he can enforce quotas, which would be more precise than tariffs.
So I know you were thinking I was overreaching by saying Alito was getting inane in his arguments, but folks, he wasn’t done. He then asked this:
You say that these executive orders do not address an unusual and extraordinary threat. I understand that argument. Suppose that the facts were that there was an imminent threat of war, not a declared war but an imminent threat of war with a very powerful enemy whose economy was heavily dependent on U.S. trade. Could a president under this provision impose a tariff as a way of trying to stave off that war, or would you say, no, the president lacks that power under this provision?
What the fuck is he even talking about? How does this scenario make any sense? For the love of God, Alito is losing it. I don’t know if this is just him really trying to support Trump, or if he’s losing his marbles, but Alito is compromised, man.
How the fuck could it be that an enemy of the US is about to go to war with us, but they sell goods to us, and so we impose a tariff against them, and that somehow gets them to like us more and not start a war? For fuck’s sake, if this hypothetical were true, an embargo would be the only fucking lever you’d pull. This is insane, from Alito.
Katyal again pointed out that the things IEEPA specifically gives him the authority to do aren’t raising revenue, where tariffs do.
He then hit Alito with a compelling and accurate response, IMO. He said:
If you ruled for us and the president says, I need this power, he could go across the street to Congress tomorrow and get it by a simple majority through reconciliation. But, if you vote for them, this power, as Justice Gorsuch said, as Justice Barrett said, is going to be stuck with us forever.
Neal Kumar Katyal
He’s absolutely right here. Again, the president is unlikely to sign a statute congress passes, which takes power away he wants to exploit from him. So they’d need a veto-proof majority. Therefore, getting congress to give him that power explicitly, is the more logical path.
In a response to a question from Justice Thomas who wanted to know if the president could impose tariffs as a means of getting a country to free an American hostage.
Katyal said, “The President is seeking the power to set aside all of our trade treaties unilaterally under the word “regulate.” I just don’t think it can bear that weight.”
Justice Alito went on to ask about other statutes that authorize tariffs, seemingly addressing the constitutional issue. But Katyal responded:
That’s something that can be decided by other courts at other times. As these folks come to the Court, as the government comes to the Court today, they’re citing one statute and one statute only, IEEPA, and we submit to you it doesn’t come even close to authorizing these worldwide tariffs that they’re seeking today.
This suggests he’s not really raising the constitutional nondelegation issue at all.
In a particularly feisty exchange with Justice Kavanaugh about previous times presidents imposed tariffs, Katyal points out that in all those other instances, the statutes which gave the president the authority to impose tariffs, there were clearly outlined limitations. Essentially, that congress would never give the president the limitless power to tariff, and if they did, surely they’d say so. So the lack of limits suggest, they weren’t intending for the president to be able to do that, because they’re always worried about that fucker going crazy.
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Justice Barrett asked if he agreed, since licensing is outlined in IEEPA, could the president impost a licensing fee?
Counsel Katyal said:
Not a fee. So I should have said this earlier, but license is different from a licensing fee. IEEPA and TWEA authorize licenses, not license fees. And no president has ever charged, to my knowledge, fees under those two statutes for the licenses. So fee is impermissible. License is okay.
He then again specified that if there was a licensing fee to cover costs of the licensing, that might be OK, because it’s not revenue raising. But Trump pointed out he expects the tariffs to raise 4 trillion dollars.
Justice Barrett asked about refunds, if Katyal were to win, of all the tariffs already collected.
When this case started, Katyal’s side asked for an injunction on the tariffs, because if Katyal’s side wins, refunding those tariffs could be quite the fucking mess.
But the government responded like this.
They then said, that refunds would be easy-peasy if they lose, so no reason to put a pause on them.
But now that they’re here in court, they’re acting like the refunds would be a huge burden, and therefore that’s why they should win. So that’s surely hypocritical.
The Arguments: The Petitioners (The States)
Last up is Solicitor General for Oregon, Benjamin Gutman who simply opened by saying IEEPA licenses never were fees. It was just a way to carve an exemptions for humanitarian reasons, or something like that. Clearly not revenue raising.
So an argument you’ve heard from the president and his peeps, was also put forward by Justice Kavanaugh. He asked, how the fuck could it make sense that the president could launch an embargo, which shuts down trade entirely, but a 1% tariff is somehow a problem. Sure one is a more major act than the other.
Deputy Attorney General of Oregon, Benjamin Gutman
I’d argue that tariffs are taxes on the American people, embargos just stop the trade altogether. But it doesn’t inherently cost the people any money.
But Gutman just argued that there’s never been another time where “regulate” on it’s own, was used to justify tariffs. All other instances, they used language to suggest revenue-raising efforts were allowed.
He went on to clarify to Justices Kavanaugh, Kagan, and Jackson, who all asked the same question in a roundabout way, that the reason they are different, is that with tariffs, there’s something in it for the government. For embargos, there isn’t. Sure, maybe a 1% tariff is less impactful than an embargo, but still, the government doesn’t benefit from an embargo, and the president doesn’t now have a new source of revenue to potentially exploit.
Justice Jackson, seemingly arguing for SG Gutman instead of questioning him responded:
And it would make perfect sense, I think, in a time of emergency for many of the reasons that General Sauer pointed out that Congress would want the President to have the kind of authority that is imposed when you are embargoing things, when you are stopping the trade, when you are saying, you know, for emergency reasons we’re not letting any of this product come in. I mean, sure, that’s a big deal, but the nature of it makes sense in terms of an emergency. I think what you’re saying is that the idea that the government would use its authority to be raising revenues in this situation is a different kind of power.
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
Gutman agreed.
Justice Kavanaugh, lacking imagination, again argued that it seems nonsensical that a president could do an embargo, but not a small tariff.
The problem with this argument, and the reason I say he lacks imagination, is that the law doesn’t just allow embargos. It allows licenses and quotas, too. So Kavanaugh is ignoring the other tools that are there, to make this ridiculous false dichotomy argument that it’s the nuclear option or nothing, when it absolutely isn’t.
Counsel Gutman agreed with me.
Justice Sotomayor took the gloves off and attacked the president’s pettiness by pointing out the 10% he put on Canada because it hurt his feelings that it ran an ad about tariffs, and a 40% tax on Brazil because they prosecuted a friend of his. So this is why those powers must be restrained.
The Arguments: Respondent’s Rebuttal
Counsel Sauer had one final chance to rebut the other two, and so he went on a long diatribe, talking about how the tariffs did bring some countries to the negotiating table, and therefore they achieved the goals of resolving the emergency Trump declared under IEEPA.
The problem with this, is again, it lacks imagination. Trump didn’t try an embargo, but I’m sure that would have worked as well. Trump didn’t try quotas, but that could have also been effective. Like Kavanaugh, he made a false dichotomy argument, as if somehow tariffs were the only effective option.
The Opinion of the Court
Alrighty, place your bets, folks.
And the winner is…drumroll…Learning Resources Inc. et al., thanks to Justices Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Barrett, Gorsuch, and Jackson.
So listen, there are no less than six fucking opinions on this ruling, and I’m not going to cover all of them entirely, but the one that matters is from the chief, himself.
He wrote:
Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—“regulate” and “importation”—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.
Chief Justice John Roberts
He argues that the tariffs Trump imposed were so limitless, that clearly a tacit reference to regulate imports couldn’t have allowed for something so impactful, especially during peacetime.
He continued that SCOTUS rarely allows the president to exercise power that isn’t explicitly and clearly granted to him by statute. He also reiterates Katyal’s argument that when congress does give such powers to the president, it does so with limits and guidelines—certainly not just saying the executive can regulate imports, and nothing else.
He then wrote:
Against this backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs.
On this reading, moreover, the President is unconstrained by the significant procedural limitations in other tariff statutes and free to issue a dizzying array of modifications at will. All it takes to unlock that extraordinary power is a Presidential declaration of emergency, which the Government asserts is unreviewable. And the only way of restraining the exercise of that power is a veto-proof majority in Congress.
That view, if credited, would represent a transformative expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy, and indeed—as demonstrated by the exercise of that authority in this case—over the broader economy as well.
It would replace the longstanding executive-legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked Presidential policymaking. Congress seldom effects such sea changes through “vague language.”
Justice Roberts also cited that there was no other time IEEPA was used to impose tariffs, as was discussed at length during oral arguments, and pointed to other statutes that had been used by presidents to impose tariffs. I believe he was pointing out that other statutes have limits, guardrails, etc., which is the likely reason Trump didn’t use them—he wants the power to change them on whims.
He also argued that the sheer magnitude of what Trump had done, should give the courts pause. They should really consider whether congress clearly meant to infer such power. Since it’s not even mentioned IEEPA—safe to say they didn’t.
2025-2026 Supreme Court of the United States
He then addressed the “emergencies beget emergencies” concern, with which he agreed.
Trump’s side tried to argue that in times of emergency, the president needs broad sweeping powers to act. Instead, Justice Roberts suggested that in times of emergency, when the president is executing emergency powers, the courts should be increasingly skeptical, and require clear, inarguable authority powers were granted, not a single word, like “regulate,” that could just as easily be argued didn’t mean what the president says it means, such as in this case.
He then said, in a shot across the bow of Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh, who usually side with the major questions doctrine, but carved out an exception here:
There is no major questions exception to the major questions doctrine.
The dissent’s argument was that because the constitution gives the president dominion over foreign affairs, and tariffs are arguably foreign affairs, that somehow this means the major questions doctrine wouldn’t apply.
However, tariffs are paid for by American’s, no matter what Trump’s team tries to argue. Imported goods show up in America, and tariffs are paid for by the American companies who bought them, and then that expense is baked into the price that American consumers pay for them. So while there’s a foreign affairs component to it, the goal of tariffs isn’t to prevent people from exporting to the US, it’s to get Americans to stop buying imports, and that is not a foreign affairs issue, that’s a “government picking winners and losers in a free market” issue.
In his concurring, but separate opinion, Neil Gorsuch wrote this, and I think it’s so good, I’m going to post it without edit.
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch
For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing.
All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason.
Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design.
Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions.
And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day.
In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future. For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious.
But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.
One of Trump’s most contentious policy issues has been tariffs. His argument is that the United States has trade deficits with many other nations, and that this is inherently problematic.
Here’s the issue: it’s not a problem. It never has been.
Think about this: you have a trade deficit with your grocery store. You probably buy from them all the time, but they don’t buy anything from you. Is that a problem? Of course not.
The United States is the largest economy in the world. We have trade deficits with other nations because we have more money to buy their goods than they have to buy ours. Additionally, their goods are often cheaper, while ours are relatively expensive. This is basic capitalism—money flows to those producing the best products at the best prices.
As a result, citizens of other countries—who generally have less disposable income than Americans—are unlikely to purchase U.S. goods even if they wanted to.
President Donald Trump
But let’s discuss problem-solving more broadly.
Imagine I gave you a math problem: 2+2. If you’re unfamiliar with math, you might think the problem is 2-2. If you don’t understand the addition symbol, you’ll never get the right answer. Accurately identifying the problem is essential for finding effective solutions—this is where Trump fails spectacularly.
Once we understand that the reason we don’t export more is that U.S. goods are too expensive compared to those from other countries—and recognize that Trump’s policies haven’t addressed this—it becomes clear that he isn’t solving the problem. In fact, he is likely making it worse, which is why so many economists are predicting a recession.
As president, Trump can influence U.S. policy but has limited power over other nations, aside from imposing tariffs.
This reflects a larger issue: a lack of self-awareness on a national scale. Trump and his supporters fail to consider that the problem may lie within the United States itself. They assume that American manufacturing is flawless and that other countries are taking advantage of us. This perspective is fundamentally flawed.
Global markets are capitalism at the highest level. Other countries are competing and winning because the U.S. is repeating past mistakes—allowing prices to rise due to poor policies, thereby pricing ourselves out of the market. People aren’t willing to pay Mercedes-Benz prices for Volkswagen-quality goods.
If Trump understood that the real issue is the cost of American goods, he would focus on reducing those costs. He could:
Tighten regulations on labor unions to prevent the artificial inflation of labor costs.
Collaborate with Congress to lower the U.S. corporate tax rate, which remains similar to other developed countries. Or better yet, eliminate it altogether. If we want to compete, let’s compete!
Address the restrictive regulatory environment by working with Congress to repeal unnecessary statutes that increase production costs.
Instruct his administration to repeal regulations that add cost without providing clear value.
U.S. Congress
These measures could significantly reduce the cost of U.S. goods. It’s worth noting that generally, no company wants to manufacture outside their home country. The language barriers, compliance costs, shipping challenges, etc., are all very problematic and costly. So improving the above points at home are what would encourage more investment in U.S. production—not just raising the cost of foreign goods.
Trump’s approach is to increase the cost of imported goods to make them comparable in price to U.S. products, under the assumption that this will boost domestic spending and investment. It won’t. Americans generally prefer U.S. goods but often can’t afford them. Raising the cost of alternatives won’t change that.
Companies won’t invest in the U.S. until we fix the issues that make it expensive to do business here, either.
In my experience working for an American professional tool company, we offered both domestically produced and imported tools. The U.S.-made sets often cost around $500+, while comparable sets from Taiwan were priced between $150 and $200. Customers wanted the American-made sets, but most couldn’t afford them and bought the imported ones. If the cheaper options disappear, customers simply won’t buy anything.
It’s also important to note that imported goods support the U.S. economy because they are sold by American vendors. If affordable imports disappear, stores like Walmart will struggle to stock affordable products, leaving low-income families with fewer options.
The global economy naturally directs production to those who can make the best products at the lowest prices. This isn’t about tariffs—it’s about culture, resources, and work ethic.
Work ethic plays a role, as many young Americans are increasingly reluctant to take on labor-intensive, low-paying jobs. We’ve instilled the belief that everyone must go to college, and that low-skilled jobs are beneath them. As a result, fewer people are willing to work in factories.
Trump’s failure to address these fundamental issues has left the economy struggling. Economists are predicting a recession, inflation remains high, and Trump’s focus on tariffs is not addressing the root causes. Meanwhile, his conflicts with the courts and disregard for the Constitution are eroding support among independent voters.
The hope is that as more Americans, including his supporters, recognize the flaws in his approach, Trump will feel compelled to change course. His ego needs to be fed, and as more Americans turn against him, it’s the surest way to get him to embrace change in himself. For the sake of the country, I certainly hope we have a serious culture shift, soon.
When I think Trump is corrupt or willfully doing the wrong thing, I’m pretty harsh in my criticisms of him on “the socials.”
If he’s answering honestly here in this PBS video, then this is not so much me bashing him, as it is me being concerned about him being our president.
To give context, he is asked about the Supreme Court ordering him to effectuate the return of suspected gang member, and known illegal immigrant Kilmar Garcia (Read about this story here, for the unfamiliar), and he replies by saying that the people elected him to deport these folks, and the courts are holding him back from doing it.
So then she asks, “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States, as president?”
He responds, “I don’t know. I have to respond by saying again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me. And they are going to, obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said, is not what I heard the Supreme Court said. They have a very different interpretation.”
It should be concerning he doesn’t understand the constitution, and a court order, at such a basic level, when he’s encountered so many of them at this point.
Kilmar Arbrego Garcia
If you follow Trump and his legal issues, as covered by legal scholars and analysts alike, you’ll know he has a history of losing good lawyers.
A good podcast on this subject is called Serious Trouble, hosted by former federal prosecutor, Ken White. If you’re interested in learning law as it pertains to current issues, it’s really hard to think of a better podcast, and it’s largely apolitical.
It is often very critical of Trump, but don’t mistake this as being partisan. It’s quite possible to be a Republican ideologically, and still not like Trump, or to have apolitical reasons for disliking him.
I don’t think Ken White is a Republican, but the point is, he rarely delves into political opinions or questions, just legal analysis. So be sure to check your biases when listening, and just learn.
Former prosecutor Ken White
Anyway, on the issue of Trump losing good lawyers, an analogy would be the support of capitalism many give, and how it works.
If someone were a horrid employer, they’ll lose good employees, either because the employees won’t want to work for them, or the employer will ask them to do things that they know are wrong or immoral. The employee will, of course, refuse to do these directives, which then prompts the bad employer to fire them because they think the employee is being insubordinate, when the reality is the employer is the one out of line asking them to do those things in the first place.
This is precisely the scenario people describe when it comes to Trump and his lawyer troubles. His lawyers either fire Trump as a client, or he fires them, often after they refuse to do something they consider illegal, which could get them disbarred or worse. So Trump ends up with mediocre and ethically challenged lawyers as a result. Not to mention, he seems to have a penchant for hiring lawyers who are subjectively attractive females, for what I assume are not entirely because of their skills at lawyering.
Christina Bobb (Left), Lindsey Halligan (Center), Alina Habba (Right)
By all accounts, he’s been surrounded most of his life by employees or family members, who’ve all enabled him. It’s led him to believe he’s smarter than he is, because he doesn’t have anyone close to him to tell him he’s wrong or out of line growing up.
Penn Jillette talked about this on his podcast, Penn’s Sunday School. Penn was asked to do an interview for a book about Trump. Out of curiosity, he asked the writer, “What do his friends say about him?”
The writer responded that he hadn’t really been able to find any friends to interview. Just employees, and family members.
Penn Jillette
As a result of this sheltered and unchallenged life, it stands to reason he was turned into an entitled jerk who thinks he’s always right, and thinks anyone disagreeing with him is his enemy.
History is littered with stories like this of boy kings, for instance, who would have servants killed for just making eye contact with them.
As much as I find Trump offputting and reprehensible, I do find it sad that this is how he was brought up and how he turned out.
Maybe he was born a sociopath and was always going to be the basic person he is. But maybe he was raised so poorly, that it made him the bad person he is, and things could have been so much better for him with a better upbringing.
Either way, the idea that he doesn’t understand the Constitution in such a simple sense, is very concerning, when it’s his job to uphold it. With some of his other off-the-wall ideas, like changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico, reopening Alcatraz, or his tumultuous application of tariffs, I think it’s fair to ponder the idea that he’s starting to suffer dementia, like Biden and Reagan before him.
He’s Biden’s age—after all—and older than Reagan was during his presidency, so it’s not a crazy notion.
Either way, I think for the sake of our nation, it’s time for Republicans to move on from Trump as soon as possible before more bad things happen, either through corruption, arrogance, ignorance, or senility.
By now, unless you live under a rock, you’ve no doubt seen the backlash of these tweets from Donald Trump.
But how did we get here?
Most know it started with former San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who decided during the 2016 NFL preseason to kneel for the following reasons, as cited here on the NFL website.
I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.
Colin Kaepernick
If you are reasonably familiar with the situation, and on social media, you’ve no doubt noticed most people have an opinion on one side or the other, and it’s nearly as heated and divided as religion and politics infamously are.
Since most opinions I’ve read are pretty passionate instead of objective, I felt it was worth exploring the subject from a skeptic’s point of view. As an issue, between Trump’s position and Kaepernick’s, it’s pretty complicated with a lot of facets worth considering individually.
If we start from the beginning, Kaepernick opted to do this in the wake of a number of police involved shootings of young “black” men, some of which, were unarmed. It appeared to be excessive force by many, and potentially even manslaughter or murder. Yet no charges against said officers were filed in the immediate aftermath. (I’m not aware of whether charges were filed later.)
While I believe the deliberately hateful racists, whether they be white-on-black or vice versa, are an incredibly small minority; many more biases are simply ingrained, and a product of conditioning versus a deliberate intention to demean someone.
Respectful discussions between the two sides can help overcome both, if we’re willing to have them. So I encourage all people, no matter what their skin tone may be, to be open to such discussions. It’s surely the only way tensions will improve.
But moving on from whether Colin has a point or not, let’s discuss his tactics, since they’ve now overshadowed his initial concern he was trying to bring awareness to, which for him, is almost assuredly a tragedy.
Is Kneeling Effective Towards His Goal?
SANTA CLARA, CA – OCTOBER 02: Colin Kaepernick #7 of the San Francisco 49ers kneels on the sideline during the anthem prior to the game against the Dallas Cowboys at Levi’s Stadium on October 2, 2016 in Santa Clara, California. (Photo by Thearon W. Henderson/Getty Images)
Since this started over a year ago, can we honestly say that racism has gotten any better?
It should be noted that it’s virtually impossible to quantify racism, but it is possible to quantify how many police shootings of unarmed black men who weren’t directly witnessed to have committed a crime.
Nonetheless, those parameters aren’t part of any FBI data I’ve seen. So there’s little way to determine if he’s been effective in reducing them.
As such, no claims one way or the other, can be considered anything other than speculation until that data is available. But I will say that it does seem like there have been fewer of these in the news since these protests began.
I think it’s also safe to say that racism is part of many discussions in a meaningful way at a number that’s probably as high as it has been since the civil rights movement.
The media’s coverage of Colin’s actions and their coverage of the police shootings which instigated his actions are largely to blame for this. So it is fair to say that he’s at least helped start the discussions that needed to happen, and are hopefully helping to achieve his end goal.
Are His Actions Congruent With His Goal
On this issue, I have to say I feel Colin missed his mark.
The U.S. flag is generally something that’s attributed to represent our nation, and also the men and women who served our military to defend it. But Colin never insinuated he was mad at those people.
He directed his anger at what he felt were several corrupt law enforcement officers, and the system that seemed to defend that.
So yes, he created awareness, but the people he offended doing it, were largely not the people he was mad at in the first place.
Is Colin Kaepernick a Racist
I cringe when anyone tries to make claims about what’s in someone’s heart. You just can’t know that. So you often have to take people at their word or their actions.
Colin Kaepernick with adoptive parents Rick and Teresa Kaepernick
I don’t recall seeing one instance where Colin said anything negative about Caucasians. It’s also important to note that Colin has a biological mother who is “white,” presumably a “black” father, and adoptive “white” parents who took him in and raised him.
The idea that he’s racist, seems pretty far-fetched, and not supported by any evidence I saw. But feel free to comment below, citing sources, if you’ve seen any statements he uttered against Caucasians in general.
Could He Have Chosen a Better Tactic?
Because Colin is famous, I believe he’d have done far more to improve these relations between the police and young urban minorities by doing community outreach with police. Maybe trying to start a ride-along program with NFL stars, for instance.
Urging NFL players, especially those who were once urban minorities themselves, to go out with officers and start dialogues with them based on mutual respect between the police and many of the NFL players who were former at-risk kids themselves, would certainly help achieve his goal.
If police hear these stories from some of the NFL’s best, maybe it would make the officers see the young men in their community as potential greatness instead of potential criminal young men.
Community Outreach: Dajuan Howze, 13, battles for the ball against Pittsburgh Police officer Gino Perry while Zone 5 police commander Jason Lando waches. The officers played a pick up basketball game with local youth during the Homewood Community Day celebration.
I also believe that if a cop car rolls up in a bad neighborhood with a superstar like Colin riding along with them, it might incite those kids to get to know their local police; building better relationships in the process.
If you’re one of those kids, you’d love to meet an NFL star. And if you meet one thanks to a police officer who brought him to you, all of a sudden that police officer is more likely to be seen as a friend instead of a foe.
Is Colin Trying To Create Unity
On the face of it, a peaceful protest is certainly what Martin Luther King is famous for. And his kneeling is not that different from Rosa Parks sitting on a front bus seat.
Yet once Colin knelt, many took offense, and sadly didn’t see it that way, if that’s how he meant it.
Even if he justifies it by saying that it was only directed at bad cops, I’ve heard multiple racist “white” people justify hateful speech by saying, “There’s black people, and then there’s n*****s”?
They assume because I’m white, I want to hear that nonsense. I assure you, I really REALLY don’t appreciate it. And I usually tell them so if I’m not in a position where I think I’ll be physically attacked for doing it. And Colin’s excuse for wearing those socks is pretty similar, in my opinion.
If rational people like me were apt to side with his peaceful protests, assuming he had nothing but the best intentions in his heart for all parties involved, this went a long way to burn that.
But nonetheless, I try to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was just angry, and did something ill-advised in his enraged state. Haven’t we all, in a moment of anger, said or done things we regret later?
Now let’s discuss Donald Trump’s actions.
Donald Trump Official Portrait
Love him or hate him, I think it’s fair to admit that Trump is open and honest about his opinions. His Twitter feed is laden with unrehearsed, unpolished, and uncensored opinions that clearly seem to be what he actually feels.
So let’s take a skeptical look at those.
Were Trump’s Tweets Divisive When We All Tend To Agree Unity is Needed?
Yes Trump’s comments were divisive. I frankly wish he’d just stop. But so were the people opting to kneel.
You cannot fairly condemn Trump for being divisive, if you won’t equally condemn the players who know it’s upsetting a very large portion of the country, without being hypocritical.
Should Trump Have Said What He Said and Tweeted What He Tweeted?
Trump is effectively two people. He’s a president, and an American citizen.
As president, I want him to be involved in Colin’s (and the NFL’s) actions absolutely zero.
Instead, I’d want to see him order the FBI to investigate police shootings to make sure local police aren’t effectively protecting their own during the investigations of officer shootings. Clearly, letting the San Francisco PD investigate one of their own is as big of a conflict of interest as one could imagine.
I’d also want federal prosecutors to handle any disciplinary actions, up to and including criminal trials.
As for Trump tweeting an official position on the kneeling, he should simply say it’s a private matter for the free market to sort out.
If it kills NFL ratings, then they’ll react accordingly. This is not the business of a government who’s first amendment guarantees free speech.
As an American citizen, he has a right to an opinion on anything, including this. In my opinion, he should have two different Twitter accounts: one for “the president” and one for “the citizen,” which he does (@POTUS and @realDonaldTrump). Then, keep his official positions on one, and his personal opinions on the other.
On this issue, he largely did exactly that. His @POTUS account retweeted the personal account’s tweet below, and that’s all I’ve found. The rest were on his personal account.
In general, I don’t feel Donald Trump has done a remotely admiral job at unifying a divided nation—quite the contrary. His business acumen is about winning, which means he’s often competitive by nature. That aggressiveness comes out in his behavior often, and I suspect it’s not likely to change.
He’s arguably the most divisive president in history, but it’s not like we didn’t know this prior to the election, and yet he still won. So this isn’t exactly an overpromise/underdeliver situation; no bait-and-switch transpired here.
But as much as I disagree with him on significant policy issues, I at least prefer his unfiltered nature. I find it far better than people who are polished and rehearsed yet come off as obviously fake. I’d just prefer to know instead of wonder where you stand, and whether you’re a person I wouldn’t like in real life or not.
Should The NFL/Team Owners Fire Players?
Well, the players work for the teams (franchises), not the NFL. The only people firing them will be the team owners.
The NFL has code-of-conduct policies, which they seem to strictly enforce. For instance, the Cowboys wanted to have a simple sticker in support of a slain officer, and the NFL specifically forbade it.
One can certainly argue that this is somewhat hypocritical to forbid a helmet like this, while allowing some other form of protest on the field, like kneeling for the national anthem.
But nonetheless, the NFL is a private company, and they have every right to be hypocrites if they so desire, and the free market will sort it out accordingly.
As for the teams, if they want to fire the players for representing their brand in a way that’s inconsistent with their team owner’s values, then they have a right to do so. One caveat though: only if they drafted a code-of-conduct clause is in the contract they have with that player, which specifically forbids such actions.
Now that we’ve covered the two actors in this play, let’s discuss the issue in general. Because there’s a lot of hypocritical and/or illogical behavior from the professional media and the John Q Pissed-Offs on social media.
Is This a Free Speech Issue?
This one’s pretty easy:
Is government stifling the action? – Free Speech Issue
Is private enterprise (NFL or team owners) stifling the action? – Not a Free Speech Issue
Since no one is proposing a law to prevent this, or that government intervene to stifle free speech, it’s not a free speech issue. It’s that simple. When such a law or government action is proposed, only then will it become a free speech issue.
Is It About Disrespecting The Flag
Many argue that it’s just a flag, and we shouldn’t get so worked up about it. But here’s the rub with that argument.
Colin and his fellow kneelers aren’t attacking the idea that there’s too many stars and stripes on it, nor are they complaining the colors clash. They’re mad at a country that seems to allow racism and permit cops to kill “black” kids without recourse. The flag is just a representative icon of the country this occurs in, from their perspective.
Coincidentally, the people who are mad at disrespecting the flag aren’t really passionate about “the flag” either.
They’re passionate about all that the flag represents to them.
A country founded on liberty
A soldier who fought and died to protect them
A country they fought for if they are a soldier
The freedom it represents that they don’t have in other countries
That list goes on and on.
No different from you not caring about a piece of celluloid until there’s a picture of someone you love on it, the flag, as a piece of fabric, was never what anyone really cared about.
So when you make an argument that it’s “just a flag” to defend such actions, know that this argument isn’t relevant to this issue, since it wasn’t “just a flag” to either party. All sides would do well to understand that.
As a libertarian, I’m also fervent on the idea that thought-policing has absolutely no place in a free country. If it did, let’s be honest, Colin would be in jail, or worse, murdered by the state. Just ask many Iraqis who lived under the Hussein regime, North Koreans under the Kim Jong regime, or other dictator-run nations, who lost loved ones due to a government that didn’t take kindly to a lack of respect from its citizenry.
So to me, Colin should love America for the freedom it gives him to do these protests, and instead, direct his ire at the individual officers that commit heinous acts, a legal system that doesn’t seem to effectively prosecute them, and the racists who think it’s OK for officers to avoid prosecution for manslaughter of an innocent young man. Not the flag, and all the things that the flag represents to most Americans.
The Peaceful Protest
One of the most shining examples of hypocrisy in this is the people who lashed out at all the rioters after some of these controversial shootings (rightly so), and called for people to peacefully protest, then got mad at Colin and his peers for peacefully protesting.
They did what you asked, and they did it in a forum where they’d get the most attention for doing it. If the NFL allows it, you don’t have to agree with it, but you should at least give them credit for being peaceful, even if you agree with me that it’s misguided and ill-advised.
Again, we have to stop with all the hypocrisy.
Summary
All parties in this have good intentions, even if their tactics are poor. Throughout all of it, most people are calling for unity and peace. So let’s do the things that have a proven record of achieving those goals.
I’m willing to have a respectful discussion, give benefit of the doubt to those with good intentions, even if they aren’t acting like it, and show respect to those I disagree with.
I’d also suggest instead of standing with Trump or Kaepernick, you form your own opinions, while being your own worst critic. Come to a conclusion that you think is fair to both sides, and be honest when it’s obvious you’re being hypocritical. You have no right to demand others be better if you refuse to be better yourself.
I was a pretty ardent supporter of Senator Rand Paul for president, stating that he’s the only Republican Party candidate I would have voted for in the upcoming election. Since he’s no longer running, my support has shifted to Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, but will generally support whomever of the three remaining LP nominees wins their party.
Senator Rand Paul (R)
On Twitter, I campaigned hard to any of my Republican voting followers that Senator Paul is their only candidate who can get libertarian votes, and even some Democrat votes, because his positions of liberty often span party lines. As such, I felt this strategy was their best path to the White House.
Was he polling well? No. But, this was mostly due to lack of name recognition versus the issues. More importantly, though, it’s important to understand that most Republicans will vote Republican irregardless of the specific candidate, so they would certainly follow Rand. Once he was the only person on the debate stage against a Democratic nominee, I felt he would easily win on the issues.
This might seem like I’m asking Republicans to pick my candidate instead of their own, which is counter to what I’m suggesting in this post in the first place, but the reality is that I always preferred Gary Johnson.
In supporting Rand however, I was offering what I would consider a highly favorable compromise. But the rest of the Republican voting block didn’t seem interested in such a compromise, and turned this into a negotiation where both sides agreed there simply was no deal to be made.
While I believe the remaining Republicans are slightly better than Democratic offerings, I refuse to vote for any Republican on the sole premise that it’s imperative to beat the Democrats at any cost.
The most common disagreement we have with the GOP, is that we largely disagree with their consistent efforts to subversively legislate Christian values, while skirting 1st amendment objections by simply not specifically mentioning god in such legislation.
But one look at this page, it is clear that this is actually not about religious liberty, but instead, a Christian crusade of sorts.
While it might look like religious liberty to Christians, almost every issue is about fighting for Christians specifically with no protections offered to other religions nor atheists.
Not only is this NOT promoting religious freedom, he’s specifically promoting government imposing a religious reference in a government sanctioned pledge—the absolute polar opposite of religious liberty.
It’s this kind of hypocrisy, and misunderstanding of the Constitution from a lawyer who should clearly understand it better than most, that makes Ted Cruz come off as disingenuous, ignorant, and wrong.
While this is on Ted Cruz’s website, these Christian based ideals, are echoed by almost all Republican candidates, including Donald Trump.
Donald Trump (R)
While I have no war with religion, I don’t want to live in a country where I have to fear my leaders forcing me to be more Christian either.
Do I consider “Under God” a big issue? Not in the least.
I’m bothered that Ted Cruz considers it big enough to put on his website as one of his credentials, and under the banner of religious freedom.
More importantly though, I’d like to think he’d fight for my rights as an atheist if a Christian legislator attempts to violate them by legislating religious ideology. Based on this page of his website however, I genuinely don’t believe he would.
So what about the wasted vote?
Many Republicans have lashed out at me, arguing that people like me are giving Democrats the win if we vote Libertarian, and that we’re wasting our vote on someone who won’t win.
At first thought, it does make some sense. A majority of libertarians would choose a Republican over a Democrat if those are their only two choices, but this is a short-sighted view on their part, and frankly somewhat arrogant and presumptuous to assume I’d prefer them. More importantly, it’s counter to my own best interests in the long term.
Former Governor Gary Johnson – Libertarian nominee for President
The first and most important point I’d like to make is this. My vote is mine. No one has any right to it, and no one has any right to dictate to me who I should vote for. So if you’re a Republican who wants to attack me for voting libertarian, you’re out of line.
Second: Your vote is your way to influence change in government. It’s not just about winning, it’s about letting people know that while they may have a majority, that majority is potentially in jeopardy if they lose some support. That growing their support will require them to give more deference towards our ideals too.
But the more important point to understand about the wasted vote myth, is that if I continue to go along with the (not Rand Paul) Republican nominee, I’m supporting a system I don’t agree with. Voting for someone who won’t win isn’t a wasted vote, voting for someone I don’t want to be president is.
Because if I want libertarianism to grow, the only way I can do that is to vote for libertarian candidates and issues. Voting for Republicans will only reinforce the current Republican agenda with no deference to my own. In other words, what argument could one possibly make to believe libertarianism would grow if no one votes libertarian? So the only way I can waste my vote is by not voting for those who promote the ideals which I support.
If I vote libertarian, and Republicans do lose, this puts Republicans in a position of self-reflection as to why they lost, and how they can grow their party.
Libertarian Party
Many Republicans are quite libertarian in their views already, so it’s not that big of a leap, and I hope they consider it more seriously. They’ll hopefully recognize that the way to grow their party, is to be more libertarian on the issues. When you look at the issues that people part with the GOP on in the first place, you’ll find it’s the issues that libertarians and Democrats agree, and when people lash out at Democrats, it’s usually the policies where libertarians and Republicans agree.
I’d argue there’s a lesson in that for both the major parties, hopefully one or both of them figure it out soon.
Donald Trump has recently announced that as president, he would use executive order to ban Muslims from entering the country temporarily.
As an atheist, I feel all religion can be dangerous if taken to extremes. But that being said, there can be no doubt that around the world, in the 21st century, the overwhelming majority of atrocities committed in the name of religion are committed by people of the Muslim faith.
Any time a tragedy happens, we as a people tend to believe we should try to analyze the problem that caused the tragedy and fix it. If the problem is too big for any one of us to fix, the non-libertarian population often feel government should fix it for them.
But let’s apply a little critical thinking to Trump’s idea of banning foreign Muslims from entering the United States.
How exactly do we go about banning all Muslims? If a Muslim applies to come to America, do the authorities ask that Muslim if they’re Muslim?
While an honest Muslim might answer truthfully, knowing it would preclude them from coming, wouldn’t a radical Muslim intending to kill Americans, or a desperate but peaceful Muslim hoping to flee a war-zone, just lie to get into the United States?
Quite similarly to the “If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have them” argument, if Muslims are banned from entering the United States, only deceitful Muslims will enter.
There is no DNA test that tells you what religion someone is—religion isn’t genetic. There is nothing science has to offer to detect one’s religion.
The 1st amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
By the letter of the Constitution, the president could in-fact pass such an order, because it isn’t Congress passing a law, it’s the president passing an executive order.
So while some have put forth the constitutionality argument, I would have to argue it is a non sequitur.
U.S. Constitution: 1st Amendment
But, the Supreme Court continues to allow Blue Laws which are clearly an establishment of religion, proving the letter of the Constitution isn’t always their ultimate guide.
So it’s quite possible that the Supreme Court would strike such an executive order down based on the “principles” of the first amendment, versus the letter of it, as they tend to err on the side of secularism these days—something I typically appreciate.
The Supreme Court Of The United States
So now we understand that if Trump wrote such an order, there’s no way to know who is and isn’t a Muslim. Even if the Supreme Court didn’t strike it down as an executive order, if Congress tried to pass it as law, it would most assuredly get struck down then.
But also, it is important to consider that even if such a law did somehow evade the Supreme Court’s wrath, and scientists invented a Muslim detector that really worked; when exactly is “temporary” over?
We’ve been fighting the war on terror since 2001, and it’s not like there are any fewer radical Muslims killing people. While the radicals may be a small minority at best, if he’s passing such an order to eliminate the threat, the threat won’t be eliminated until all Muslims are dead—an idea I assume most people would not support.
Because much like it’s impossible to identify a Muslim with any certainty if they choose to hide it, it’s equally impossible to identify a radical Muslim hell-bent on killing innocent civilians they deem to be infidels deserving of death.
Hopefully, Trump and his supporters will come to their senses and realize this isn’t a workable plan, and instead look for ways to better screen all people coming into the United States. But they should also understand that with freedom comes danger, as illustrated by our gun laws—something most Trump supporters do support, and anyone else who is serious about liberty.
So if we’re OK with one danger, we should be OK with the other, lest we be hypocrites.
While I don’t claim to have the answer; if we’re seeking one, I’d at least like to know there’s a bit of logic and reason behind the ideas being proposed, because this one has very little.
“If you see something, say something,” is a much simpler notion, it’s something we can all do to help government officials find these people. Exercising our 2nd amendment rights to arm ourselves so we can take down any would-be killers in our midst if we encounter one is pretty simple too.
Both are far more likely to be effective and far more doable than Trump’s entirely unworkable notion.
log·i·cal: capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion lib·er·tar·i·an: an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
One can certainly argue that this is somewhat hypocritical to forbid a helmet like this, while allowing some other form of protest on the field, like kneeling for the national anthem.
![visa_application_rejection[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/visa_application_rejection1.jpg?w=300)
The Logical Libertarian™ 