Speaker 1: Jen and I Weather forecast heat advisory in effect till
Speaker 1: eight pm. Good news for the week weekend.
Speaker 2: Hold on today's high ninety three feeling more like one
Speaker 2: hundred and three degrees, very slim chance of rain overnight's
Speaker 2: and clear skies seventy two for below eighty three are
Speaker 2: high tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Though we're supposed to get some rain between nine am
Speaker 1: and five pms.
Speaker 2: Rain moves out of a night down to sixty five
Speaker 2: and a cool, refreshing eighty degrees for the high on Friday,
Speaker 2: and they say prepare for a wonderful weekend weatherwise seventy six.
Speaker 1: Right now, time for a travel up day.
Speaker 3: Chuck Ingram from the UC Help Traffic Center u See
Speaker 3: Health Weight Loss Center offers Sergic Cohen Medical ob CD
Speaker 3: care and expertise called five one three nine three nine
Speaker 3: two two six three that's nine three nine twenty two
Speaker 3: sixty three Highway traffic is a slow go southbound seventy five,
Speaker 3: especially there was a broken down in the center lane
Speaker 3: in milonch one split.
Speaker 1: They blocked off the right lane.
Speaker 3: Too clear now, but it's over a twenty minute to
Speaker 3: lay out of Sharonville northbound seventy five Heavy US between
Speaker 3: Buttermilk and downtown. Coming up next, guest who is tanned
Speaker 3: and rests it up from vacation and ready to go
Speaker 3: fine school supplies the judges. Next, Chuck Ingram month fifty
Speaker 3: five krs the talk.
Speaker 2: Station, Hey, thirty fifty five kar see the talk station
Speaker 2: Judge Napolitana with his brand new package of number two pencils.
Speaker 1: He's ready for school.
Speaker 4: Welcome back, always ready for school.
Speaker 5: Thank you Chuck Ingram, Thank you Brian, Thank you Joe Stricker.
Speaker 4: What a pleasure to be back with you guys, all
Speaker 4: the best to you.
Speaker 2: Really missed having you on when you were gone. Understand
Speaker 2: the need for vacation, and I hope you had a
Speaker 2: nice one.
Speaker 4: I did, I did.
Speaker 5: I was in Berlin, Zurich, and a week at Lake
Speaker 5: Como was just beautiful, just lovely, so all the friends
Speaker 5: I wanted to see. It was a great, great vacation.
Speaker 5: But after a while you think that's time to get productive.
Speaker 2: Again, get back to the farm and get some work done. Anyhow,
Speaker 2: it's a pleasure having you back in the program, and
Speaker 2: I thoroughly enjoyed, as I always do your column. Can
Speaker 2: the President impose taxes? The question asked that to lead
Speaker 2: into the column. Then this boils down to a conversation
Speaker 2: an ilegal analysis of tariffs trum.
Speaker 5: This is going to be argued tomorrow, Thursday, July thirty first,
Speaker 5: before the Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Speaker 5: in DC. There will not be an empty seat in
Speaker 5: the House. They've already had to put screens up in
Speaker 5: other rooms.
Speaker 4: There's such an interest in it.
Speaker 5: The belief amongst those of us in the legal community
Speaker 5: that monitor these things.
Speaker 4: Is that the lower court will be upheld.
Speaker 5: And the tariffs will the declaration that the tariffs are
Speaker 5: unconstitutional because only Congress can impose a tax, and a
Speaker 5: tariff is a tax.
Speaker 4: No matter what Donald Trump calls.
Speaker 5: It will be the law of the land. This will
Speaker 5: have an unbelievable effect on the president's daily negotiations.
Speaker 4: Yes, now they're not going to rule from the bench.
Speaker 4: It's the end of July.
Speaker 5: I would guess a decision wouldn't come out until after
Speaker 5: Labor Day.
Speaker 2: And presumably if it does uphol the lower court's opinion,
Speaker 2: which was these are taxes and he does not have
Speaker 2: the power to do this, the likelihood of appeal is strong.
Speaker 2: We're going to end up in the Supreme Court on
Speaker 2: this one. The chance of a graining of a retisserciara
Speaker 2: on this I suppose it is pretty high.
Speaker 1: If that's what I.
Speaker 5: Think the Supreme Court, even though there's no split in
Speaker 5: the circuits possible here, because this is the only court
Speaker 5: that can hear this.
Speaker 4: Meaning, this is not a case.
Speaker 5: Where a judge in California said one thing and the
Speaker 5: ninth Circuit agreed, and the judge in Massachusetts said the
Speaker 5: opposite and the first circuit agreed. No, this is the
Speaker 5: only court that has the jurisdiction to address tariffs, the
Speaker 5: US International Court of Trade, which sits here in Manhattan,
Speaker 5: and now the Appellate Court for this Court in DC.
Speaker 5: So I think the Supreme Court will want to hear this,
Speaker 5: even though it seems to me pretty obvious. The president
Speaker 5: doesn't have the power to impose a tax. Look, tariffs
Speaker 5: have been around since the colonial era. Jefferson and company
Speaker 5: loved them. They were a principal mechanism for funding the
Speaker 5: federal government. But they were enacted by Congress. They were
Speaker 5: not imposed by the president. The Constitution couldn't be clearer.
Speaker 5: All legislative power here and granted shall be in a
Speaker 5: Congress of the United States. The first power articulated to
Speaker 5: Congress Article one, Section eight, the power delay and collect taxes.
Speaker 5: It's clear as can be that only Congress can impose attacks.
Speaker 4: Congress can tax anything at once.
Speaker 5: If Congress doesn't wan want me to wear a red tie,
Speaker 5: they cannot enact or regulation banning red ties.
Speaker 4: They don't have the authority to do that.
Speaker 5: They could ban them an interstate commerce or they could
Speaker 5: tax the daylights out of it so that I wouldn't
Speaker 5: buy one. They clearly can impose tariffs. Nobody else can.
Speaker 2: Now the tariffs that are currently in place, and I
Speaker 2: mean he's tinkering with things that currently exist, raising them
Speaker 2: where he wants to raise them in no order to
Speaker 2: get you know, this seems to be a critical component
Speaker 2: to his foreign policy strategy. I note, for example, that
Speaker 2: he's threatening Russia with sanctions and additional tariffs if they
Speaker 2: continue to fund this war with Ukraine, so that power
Speaker 2: will be taken away. Is there an argument in there
Speaker 2: that this is not This is in taxas is terriffs,
Speaker 2: and it's related to foreign policy, and Donald Trump has
Speaker 2: exclusive authority under the Constitution to deal with matters of
Speaker 2: foreign policy.
Speaker 5: Probably the government's strongest argument is that this is a
Speaker 5: matter of foreign policy and therefore immune from judicial review.
Speaker 5: The lower court dismissed that summarily, saying it is a
Speaker 5: matter of foreign policy, but the president is doing it
Speaker 5: for non foreign policy reasons. He's doing it because of
Speaker 5: an imbalance of trade. He's doing it because he's been
Speaker 5: insulted by foreign leaders, he's doing it because it doesn't
Speaker 5: like a criminal case going on in Brazil. And whatever
Speaker 5: he does, it is still subject to the Constitution. Though
Speaker 5: the president has privacy, he doesn't have total domination. His
Speaker 5: ambassadors have to be confirmed, he needs a budget from
Speaker 5: the Congress. He can't declare war. He still has to
Speaker 5: respect the Bill of Rights, so there are other constraints
Speaker 5: still on his ability to run foreign policy.
Speaker 4: He cites a statute. It's an interesting statute.
Speaker 5: I think these emergency laws are all unconstitutional because the
Speaker 5: Supreme Court has consistently said there are no emergency powers
Speaker 5: in the Constitution. It applies in good times in badtheless.
Speaker 5: In nineteen seventy seven and the Carter era, the Congress
Speaker 5: and acted and President Carter signed into law giving the
Speaker 5: president emergency powers in the case of an economic emergency.
Speaker 5: And it allows him to do a lot of things.
Speaker 5: Tariffs is not in there. The very statute that he
Speaker 5: cited for a support his lawyers didn't even read.
Speaker 4: It doesn't authorize the presidential imposition of tariffs.
Speaker 5: It allows him to do a lot of things, ban products,
Speaker 5: sanction products, even imposed wage and price controls. It does
Speaker 5: not permit tariffs.
Speaker 2: Well, and there's an argument you've made in there, unless
Speaker 2: it's been tested in arguing for the Supreme Court, that
Speaker 2: that's an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority to the president.
Speaker 4: It absolutely is. It absolutely is.
Speaker 5: And Brian, the lower court did something I've never seen before.
Speaker 5: When the DOJ said it's not attacks, the lower court
Speaker 5: said it is. But even if it weren't, no matter
Speaker 5: what you call it, Congress can't give its power away
Speaker 5: to the president. That would violate the separation of powers.
Speaker 5: So the lower court covered the full gamut of legal
Speaker 5: issues implicated by this. I think that Trump entered office,
Speaker 5: I can't get into his brain, of course, held bent
Speaker 5: on using tariffs as an instrument to effectuate his will.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, irrespective irrespective of the constitutional constraints that he
Speaker 5: swore to uphold.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because I think he felt strongly that tariffs are
Speaker 2: not taxes, and because the congressional power had the power
Speaker 2: to lay and collect taxes, he believed, you know, fundamentally,
Speaker 2: the tariffs are not taxes. Ergo he's allowed to do it.
Speaker 2: Is he the first president or only presidents who just
Speaker 2: arbitraris I'll say arbitrarily, Maybe that's an incorrect word to use,
Speaker 2: but to just pick and choose what taxes or what
Speaker 2: tariffs he wants the levee on you given country. There
Speaker 2: is there any precedent for a president doing that.
Speaker 5: The closest precedent is a case called Curtis Right. This
Speaker 5: is nineteen thirty six, so we're at the height of
Speaker 5: the depression. Congress gave the president then FDR, the power
Speaker 5: to determine what could be exported and imported on his
Speaker 5: own and make it a crime to violate what he
Speaker 5: decided couldn't be exported and imported. Curtis Right was a
Speaker 5: manufacturer of weapons, and they sold it to the country Oblivia.
Speaker 5: And even though Congress never prohibited, only the president did.
Speaker 5: The court allowed the prosecution to go forward. That's about
Speaker 5: the closest there is. It's not a tariff, but it
Speaker 5: makes criminal the violation of an executive order banning the
Speaker 5: exportation of certain goods. Short answer to your question is,
Speaker 5: no president has ever imposed tariffs on his own. The
Speaker 5: closest we have is this FDR thing. But FDR didn't
Speaker 5: need to do it on his own. He had a
Speaker 5: very compliant Congress for all twelve years office.
Speaker 1: We all know that he did.
Speaker 4: That's why we have so many problems today.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, and I guess the lower court opinion has
Speaker 2: it been stayed pending outcome on appeal because he's still
Speaker 2: at it. I mean, he's negotiating.
Speaker 5: They stayed it on their own, which is the smart
Speaker 5: thing to do, rather than aggravate the appellate court, and
Speaker 5: forced them to do so in the middle of the summer.
Speaker 5: So the lower court stayed its opinion pending appeal.
Speaker 4: So he is. He is still at it.
Speaker 5: The interesting thing would be if they had not stayed it,
Speaker 5: would he still be at it?
Speaker 1: Right? Creates an academic question.
Speaker 4: Because his DOJ.
Speaker 5: Is the most flagrant violators of court orders I've ever seen.
Speaker 5: One of the principal architects of those violations was just
Speaker 5: made a federal appellate judge.
Speaker 1: Night. Here we go, all right.
Speaker 2: Very briefly, since we're out of Tom Judge and Polatano.
Speaker 2: The outcome, let's assume, for the sake of discussion throughout
Speaker 2: it goes to the legal system, these things, the terrorifts,
Speaker 2: R and D taxes. He does not have the power
Speaker 2: to unilaterally do it. That means all the negotiations that
Speaker 2: he's gone through, sign sealed, and delivered as some are,
Speaker 2: are now gone.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 5: He would probably ask Congress to enact the terriffs, and
Speaker 5: then you got a problem. Then you've got Republicans saying
Speaker 5: we're never going to raise taxes, deciding to impose national
Speaker 5: sales taxes. Could you imagine that you want to buy
Speaker 5: one hundred thousand dollars Mercedes, but the Republicans that said
Speaker 5: it's going to cost you one hundred and fifteen thousand.
Speaker 4: You want to buy a twenty five dollars toaster.
Speaker 5: But the Republicans are saying it's not going to cost
Speaker 5: you thirty bucks. That's the burden that they do not
Speaker 5: want to have to deal with.
Speaker 4: Prior to the twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: Mid read my lips, no new taxes.
Speaker 4: What happened?
Speaker 2: Then, Yes, we have a profound recollection of that. Judge
Speaker 2: in and Apoltana. Interesting challenge wh just the administration is
Speaker 2: going to be facing what appears to be pretty conclusive
Speaker 2: outcome that you've anticipated based upon the lower court readings.
Speaker 2: That's why we've got you around and make clear sense
Speaker 2: of all this. Judge Enneda Polatano, God bless you so
Speaker 2: happy you're back from vacation.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you had safe travel man.
Speaker 5: Thank you to everybody, to your whole team, and look
Speaker 5: forward already in the next Wednesday, All the best, Brian.
Speaker 2: Next Wednesday, my friend appointment listening on the fifty five
Speaker 2: KRS morning show eight forty one. Right now, stick around,
Speaker 2: we're going to hear from Claremont County Prosecutor Mark to
Speaker 2: call the congratulations to him and his team.
Speaker 1: They scored a great conviction the other day. We'll learn
Speaker 1: all about that in a moment. Fifty five the talk
Speaker 1: station would and