>>/176305/,  >>/176306/,  >>/176307/,  >>/176308/,  >>/176309/,  >>/176310/,  >>/176311/,  >>/176312/,  >>/176313/,  >>/176314/,  >>/176315/,  >>/176316/,  >>/176317/,  >>/176318/,  >>/176319/,  >>/176320/,  >>/176321/,  >>/176322/,  >>/176323/,  >>/176324/,  >>/176325/,  >>/176326/,  >>/176327/,  >>/176328/,  >>/176329/,  >>/176330/,  >>/176331/,  >>/176332/,  >>/176333/,  >>/176334/,  >>/176335/,  >>/176336/,  >>/176337/,  >>/176338/,  >>/176339/,  >>/176340/,  >>/176341/,  >>/176342/,  >>/176343/,  >>/176344/,  >>/176345/,  >>/176346/,  >>/176347/,  >>/176348/,  >>/176349/,  >>/176350/,  >>/176351/,  >>/176352/,  >>/176353/,  >>/176354/,  >>/176355/,  >>/176356/,  >>/176357/,  >>/176358/,  >>/176359/,  >>/176360/,  >>/176361/,  >>/176362/,  >>/176363/,  >>/176364/,  >>/176365/,  >>/176366/,  >>/176367/,  >>/176368/,  >>/176369/,  >>/176370/,  >>/176371/,  >>/176372/,  >>/176373/,  >>/176374/,  >>/176375/,  >>/176376/,  >>/176377/,  >>/176378/,  >>/176379/,  >>/176380/,  >>/176381/,  >>/176382/,  >>/176383/,  >>/176384/,  >>/176385/,  >>/176386/,  >>/176387/,  >>/176388/,  >>/176389/,  >>/176390/,  >>/176391/,  >>/176392/,  >>/176393/
Article 1, Section 8. That's it.
Well, then why did it take 177 pages? But there's more. 
The Congresses have passed multiple statutes and even more. 
Historically, presidents have used all kinds of trade tools to influence and affect international commerce, foreign policy and national security. 
It simply does not just come down to the powers of the purse.
Article 2, Section 1 gives the President great power over conducting foreign policy. 
What are tariffs? Tariffs are effectively taxes imposed on foreign governments.
Well, isn't that foreign policy? Yes. 
And when a President uses tariffs to influence foreign governments, whether it's over war and peace, whether it's over economic policy, whatever it's over. 
Is that not the conduct of foreign policy? Of course it is. 
Seventh, the court bobbed and weaved, touching on Congressional delegation or non-delegation, cherry-picking the historical record where Presidents have imposed tariffs and other international trade tools to influence and affect foreign policy, with the majority - we think - essentially ignoring or rejecting all contrary precedent in history. 
All precedent in history that came before is essentially written off. 
Number eight, the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, bluntly states that when he reads the text of the 1977 statute at issue, even those words specifically authorizing the President to, quote, regulate importation. 
It's in the statute. They're in the law. 
And in fact, are in several other laws, by the way, authorizing the President to impose tariffs. 
In this case, he says, there are just too many words between the words "regulate" and "importation."
Got that? Too many words between the word regulate, importation, for him to draw the conclusion that this particular statute authorized the president to regulate importation. 
Ninth, Justice Thomas went through the history of President power and tariffs meticulously, as he always does. 
And that makes clear that President Trump has, in fact, been acting within the powers traditionally exercised by past presidents. 
Now, I know people who are opposed to tariffs say, oh, that's not true. But it is true.
So what we're discussing here is the Constitution and the law, not policy preferences. 
And who makes those decisions? 
Six justices on the Supreme Court who can barely write a single majority opinion? In fact, they don't.
Tenth, Justice Kavanaugh was brilliant in his dissent, and he went through the statutory history of delegations to presidents of tariff powers, as well as other points, making clear that the President was, in fact, delegated authority under that 1977 statute to, quote, regulate importations.
Shame on Chief Justice Roberts. 
Shame on Justices Barrett and Gorsuch. 
Your word games and semantical ruminations had no place here. 
I was left thinking how lawyers can become so typically absurd when trying to prove how brilliant they are. 
Or when, in fact, their egos get in the way of well-reasoned outcomes. 
And you can see that in some of the back and forth. It's really kind of appalling. 
 90