I think what's really at stake most of all is whether or not the president has violated the constitution because again we have to go all the way back to the founding of our country. You know, no taxation without representation is on that license plate on everybody in the District of Columbia. And what it really is saying is the Constitution gives to the Congress, not to the president, the power to impose taxes or tariffs. the Constitution gives to the Congress, not to the president, the right to regulate fo ...

Core Argument - The central issue revolves around whether President Trump has the constitutional authority to impose tariffs without Congressional approval, as the Constitution grants Congress the power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce [1][2][4]. Legal Authority and Tariffs - The discussion focuses on the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEPA) and whether Congress has delegated tariff authority to the president through this law [3][4]. - The interpretation of the term "regulate" is critical, with many arguing that it does not equate to the power to impose tariffs [4][16]. Potential Outcomes of Court Ruling - If the Supreme Court upholds the tariffs, they will continue; if struck down, approximately $88 to $100 billion in tariffs may need to be refunded to importers [5][6]. - The court's decision could have significant implications for businesses and consumers, as it may redefine the president's ability to impose tariffs [18]. Economic Implications of Tariffs - Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers argues that tariffs are generally unwise economic policy, raising prices and slowing economic growth [18][19]. - While tariffs generate revenue, they may not significantly improve the budget deficit and could lead to higher interest rates and a slower economy [25][26]. Alternative Legal Routes - The administration has other legal avenues to impose tariffs, such as Section 122, which allows for emergency tariffs under specific conditions [10][11]. - The Supreme Court may choose to avoid a definitive ruling, potentially remanding the case for further proceedings [12][13].

Now the Supreme Court's going to hear a challenge to President Trump's uh tariff policy and Aean Jabvers. You can also look at this on Poly Market. Joins us now uh with more on the case. Uh I think only 35% uh chance of uh the president prevailing uh with with uh with with this tariff case.I don't I don't know what whether that's that's accurate or not, but money. Yesterday we saw it, Aean. There were people betting $2 million on Mandani to make $100,000.>> No, it wasn't though, was it. >> It's not if it's ...