Which is why I am asking you to clarify your point.
So your earlier post about the unrelated law was what, then?
Especially with the "don't shoot the messenger" part?
How does that law relate to your argument here about reigning in unlimited Presidential power to apply tariffs? Presumably you thought it was important to your point.
" Perhaps they will say Congress should authorize Presidential authority at some point. However, the U.S. Supreme Court does not overturn clear Congressional legislation. " is not the same as " they might try to rule Congress can't just relinquish its authority indefinitely after new Presidential tariffs are applied."
If you think they do say the same thing, could you rephrase in a way that is clearer?
As you know, the court case is "Can Trump use the law he is using to justify the tariffs he is putting on under that law"?
So is your argument that the SC is going to not rule just on that case but invent an entirely new set of rules about when the President can impose tariffs?
Are you saying they are going to force Congress to authorize his tariffs under a new law?
Since I can't make out what you think the ruling is going to be, I can't comment on whether or not this is a reasonable statement.
