We have trillions of dollars coming into our country. If we didn't have tariffs, we would be a very poor nation and we would be taken advantage of by every other nation in the world, friend and foe. We're not going to let that happen. And we have a very, very big case in the Supreme Court. [00:00:15] I can only say this. Our country has a chance to be unbelievably rich again, but it can also be unbelievably poor again if we don't if we don't win that case. Our country is going to suffer so greatly. [00:00:33] You know that white House is really suffering from the excess gold. What's going on there? Like you like bombing Iran, but the white House looks like you're you're a Persian guy. Like, what's going on? Come on. Anyway, sorry, I just I had to comment on this. [00:00:49] I like brass fixtures in my home, but, like, too much? Yeah. Too much. That's Trump's middle name. Too much? Exactly. Yes. All right. But let's get to the topic at hand, which is tariffs much sexier than interior design. So the Trump administration is now officially asking the United States [00:01:07] Supreme Court to weigh in on the legality, the constitutionality of his various trade wars, his tariffs policy. And he wants to do this after a lower court has ruled that his sweeping tariffs are, in fact, illegal. [00:01:23] So Trump filed a petition late on Wednesday this week to ask for a review of last week's federal appeals court ruling. This is in Washington, DC, which centered on his Liberation Day tariffs. The court found in a 7 to 4 ruling last Friday that Trump overstepped [00:01:40] his presidential powers when he invoked a 1977 law designed to address national emergencies to justify his reciprocal tariffs. You know, I know this is surprising, but you can't just declare that there's a national emergency because you want to do what you want to do [00:01:57] without dealing with Congress. I get that Congress is pretty much useless at this point, but maybe we fix that instead of have an executive branch that unilaterally does anything it wants. Again, they were not reciprocal at all, despite his claims otherwise. [00:02:12] So the federal appeals court said that US law bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency. But none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, [00:02:28] duties or the like, or the power to tax. And it also said that many of Trump's steep tariffs were unbounded in scope, amount, and duration, and assert an expansive authority that is [00:02:46] beyond the express limitations of the law. His administration has leaned on. In other words, this don't make any sense. - That's what they're saying. - Yeah. So it doesn't make any sense in a lot of ways, but this is one of the ones where I think the Supreme Court might, cheat a little bit and give Trump the victory. [00:03:05] So let me explain why they shouldn't, why this ruling is definitely right, and then why they might go in the wrong direction. So first of all, Congress has the duty of imposing taxes, period. So that's a constitutional issue. [00:03:21] And so that's why even this law that Trump is citing says the president can regulate but cannot impose taxes. Again, core constitutional power of Congress, not the president. Right. So I know Donald Trump doesn't care about separation of powers. He said the other day that I'm president, so I could do whatever I want. [00:03:39] That's not how our system of government works. Number two, is there a national emergency around tariffs? No, of course not. It's absurd. It's not even close. So that doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything. That doesn't mean you shouldn't even pass tariffs or these tariffs, but it means you have to pass them into law. [00:03:56] And then the president signs them. Not. I felt like it because I have emergency powers to regulate. But that's where the Supreme Court might go. Well, you know, you say impose, I say regulate. So I think it's within his powers to regulate tariffs. And Congress gave him that authority through this law, even though the law [00:04:14] clearly says he cannot impose taxes. Right. So but they might use that as a way to go, well, okay. We're not going to let him do x, Y and Z. Get rid of due process. That's more important. And they're probably going to rule against him on a bunch of major, major cases [00:04:31] because he's so outside the law and outside the Constitution. So they're going to want to give him one here, because the optics of this is it feels like maybe the president should be able to do tariffs, and they're going to be reluctant to reverse the fact that we've already gotten trade deals. [00:04:47] So they're going to rely on. A really good point. Yeah I didn't think about that. Yeah. So now they're very wrong about it because of one of their own precedents that they set to block Biden just a couple of years ago. So we're going to get to that in a second. Can sew, but this is one where you got to watch out. [00:05:03] Supreme court could, like I said, go in Trump's direction, even though it's clearly not right by the law. Wow. Okay. So the appeals court paused its ruling. I should note that allowing the tariffs to remain in effect at least until October 14th. So the administration could file its appeal with the Supreme Court. [00:05:22] And Trump, of course, quickly hit back in dramatic fashion, claiming that, quote, if allowed to stand, this decision would literally would literally destroy the United States of America. Okay. I mean, look, it's hard to take this guy seriously. [00:05:38] He even said that the US could end up being a third world country. I got news for you. It is increasingly looking like a third world country. And the federal courts ruling on your tariffs policy has little to do with it. Yeah, because a massive income inequality that both parties have created now, [00:05:55] the Marshall Law, you're threatening by rolling in, you know, troops into our cities. You're the one ignoring the rule of law. You know, the number one way to become a third world country, in his terminology, is to ignore the rules and the constitution of a country [00:06:11] and turn it into some sort of autocracy. - And that's what destroys countries. - Yeah. So in in the petition to the Supreme Court, let's get into some of the details on that, which was filed on Wednesday night. The administration continued in this vein, saying that the tariffs [00:06:27] are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity. Your 50% tariffs pushed India into the arms of a foe. China. China. Like what are you talking about? What is this like? Okay. Yes. World peace. [00:06:42] Our tariffs policy is promoting world peace. Okay. Saying that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity and pulling America back from the precipice of disaster, restoring its respect and standing in the world. America is more isolated now than ever before. [00:06:59] India was a longtime ally. They're now like hitting up China to, like, attend the military parades that. - Russia and. - Iran. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Congratulations, America. So the Supreme Court still has no, still has to decide, of course, [00:07:16] whether or not to take up this case. Solicitor general, de John Sawyer asked the justices to take a or make a decision by September 10th. But in the case that the lower court's ruling is allowed to stand, what exactly would happen? [00:07:32] So let's get into that. I hate scams, especially the ones that target seniors, and Medicare is chock full of them. Between commission hungry brokers and thousands of confusing plan options, most seniors aren't on the best plan for them. That's why I partnered with chapter. They're fully independent and they work for you, not the insurance companies. [00:07:48] That's really important. They can review all your options in under 20 minutes, and the average senior they help saves over $1,100 a year. And the best part of it is it doesn't cost you a thing. So if you're turning 65, call the number on the screen to connect with a chapter advisor today. The current average US effective tariff rate right now is about 16.3%. [00:08:10] That would be halved. It would be cut in half. The US could be forced to pay back tens of billions of dollars to, you know, the because tariffs have already been we've spent money on tariffs already. So obviously that would have to be refunded. [00:08:26] And preliminary trade deals Trump has struck with some countries could be derailed. And what about revenue. So Trump keeps saying that his tariffs are going to bring in $17 trillion in revenue which is. Come on man. Jesus Christ. [00:08:41] Come on. Which is absurd. $17 trillion would represent more than four times all annual U.S. Imports, or more than half of the total US economy. It's more than double what the white House claimed over the weekend the tariffs were generating. [00:08:57] So he just throws numbers out there without even thinking about it. So $17 trillion. Okay. And that's I mean, like that, when he does that, it's gonna save us 8 trillion. I mean, 17 trillion. You get a sense that maybe he didn't calculate the number. Yeah, yeah. Recalculating. [00:09:13] According to the Tax Foundation, expected revenue over the next decade would increase from $2.3 trillion to $547 billion if Trump loses his case at the Supreme Court. [00:09:29] And that is significant, but nowhere near the astronomical, you know, $17 trillion figure that he was touting. Now, let's talk a little bit about well, I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the federal judges who are worried about the Supreme Court being too deferential to Trump. [00:09:44] - But did you want to jump in, Jake? - Yeah, I do. So first I want to answer a question by one of our members. Kayleigh wrote in is it just me or does Trump get fast tracked to Scotus unlike everybody else? No, Kayleigh on that one. That's very normal because the president is taking massive action. [00:09:59] And if it's illegal or unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has to step in. Well, the courts have to step in overall and stop it. And then the Supreme Court has to decide in a hurry. Is this, allowed on a national scale or not allowed? Because when the president acts in this way and there's a significant [00:10:16] constitutional question, they got to get that through the courts as soon as possible. So there's nothing wrong with that. But I love that you're participating in part of the show to join, to become a member and be part of the show. All right. Now, look, guys, you know how aggressive I am. So if one of our allies is in office, I say have at it, Hoss. [00:10:34] Etiquette don't care. Unspoken rules or unwritten rules. Well, you should have written them down. Okay, so I would push super aggressively to get our bills passed, that favor the American people. But I would never go outside of the law. I would never go outside the Constitution. [00:10:50] Because then you're defeating the purpose. The purpose is to protect and protect America and to make it better and to serve the average American. And if you're destroying the Constitution to do that, it is counterproductive, right? So now, when you look at the Supreme Court in this case, there's three reasons [00:11:05] why they should rule against Trump. One of them is legal and I think determinative. That's why I say the Supreme Court kind of has to cheat here to get to to rule for Trump. But first, before we get to that, if they ruled for Trump, they'd actually ruled against Trump. [00:11:21] They'd actually be doing Trump a huge favor because these tariffs are going to drive up inflation. - It's already begun. - And it has. And so it's going to really hurt the economy. So if Trump can say well I was going to do tariffs and they were going to get us 17 trillion and they were going to but the Supreme Court wouldn't let me. [00:11:38] That would be a huge favor for Trump even though Trump doesn't realize it. - Right. - Maybe Trump's playing 3D chess. Yeah, a little less likely. A little less likely. - A lot less. - Likely. He's lucky. More likely is the $17 trillion in revenue from his tariffs. Okay, that's more likely than Trump playing 3D chess in this situation. [00:11:55] 2d checkers is barely capable anyway. So the second reason that the Supreme Court might rule against Trump Is because, they usually vote in favor of corporate interests. And these tariffs are against corporate interests. - They don't like. - That. So now in this this is a rare case where corporations are kind of right. [00:12:13] Right. And they're not just doing it for their own. Well, they are doing it just for their own benefit. They coincidentally happen to be right. But Supreme Court generally cares more about corporate interests than political interests. Hold on. I got to jump in on that because it really depends on the corporation, because the way that Trump sold his tariffs policy to the American people is [00:12:32] not the way he's actually carrying it out. Obviously, he doesn't really care about manufacturing jobs coming back to the United States. In fact, we have less manufacturing jobs. In fact, a new jobs report came out and hiring has slowed considerably. Our economy has come to a screeching halt. And now you have various companies basically warning consumers prices are [00:12:52] about to go up because we've been eating the costs of Trump's tariffs. But there's a wrinkle in this story that I don't think is being talked about enough. And that wrinkle is the fact that, you know, there are some corporations, there are some US based companies who got carve outs from Trump's tariffs. [00:13:09] And so there's like some bribery going on with that, which disgusts me. But it also gives the companies who are bribing to get those carve outs an edge in the markets. Right. Because they're able to offer their product for less because they're not, [00:13:27] you know, having to pass off the cost of the tariffs to the consumers. Yeah. So look, that's crony capitalism. Corporate capture. Yeah, absolutely. All those problems and both the voters of both the left and the right are sick of that. So finally, for me, what is the core legal issue here? [00:13:46] Well, the Supreme Court, announced something called a major questions doctrine under Biden. And so Biden was trying to do student loan forgiveness, right? And they said no. If it's a major question of policy that affects the budget significantly. [00:14:04] Then it's a major question that has to be authorized by Congress, and the president cannot do it unilaterally. Now the tariffs, the size of the tariffs dwarf the student debt forgiveness. So they are much, much larger. So there's no question that it is a major question according to the major questions [00:14:22] doctrine that the Supreme Court said as a precedent just a couple of years ago. So they would have to reverse their own precedent, which would then become comical. - Right? - Total clown show. We meant the president doesn't need authority if it's a major question. And so now are they going to reverse every time there's a new president? [00:14:40] So I don't know how they're going to get around that one. But that would be a massive case of legal hypocrisy if they turn around and say, this is not a major question because it clearly is according to their own standard and hence has to be passed by Congress and cannot be done unilaterally by the president. [00:14:57] Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets its wings. Totally not true, but it does keep you updated on our live shows.