Fareed Zakaria

And he just said, look, there's no law that tells me I can't do this.

Similarly, he's correct when he says, there's no law that says my kids can't do all the business they want and take advantage of the fact that they're my children.

And all these things were norms.

And what it's turned out is that we need more

actual laws that constrain executive power in particular.

And the challenge here is the Supreme Court has become so pro-executive power that I think we're in a very bad fix because you can see the problem as you described it.

The Trump presidency is basically knocking down norms, in many cases, violating laws.

The TikTok ban should have been implemented.

It was a congressional ban.

That was a law.

Yeah, and that is in some ways at the heart of the problem of the American constitution, because I would argue that one of the things that the founders really could not have imagined was these political parties that are so loyal to the party and to the president as the head of the party that they completely abdicate their institutional loyalty to Congress, right?

So Madison always believed that

congressional power would always be a check on executive power because Congress wants to retain its own self-interested, you know, for self-interested reasons, retain power.

No, Mike Johnson is happy to be the errand boy to Donald Trump.

Because at the end of the day, he knows that the way he's going to stay in power and get elected is by being Donald Trump's errand boy.

So if you have a system like that, you actually don't have the checks and balances.

The checks and balances are completely notional.

Or similarly, as you point out with the court, I think what Trump is doing, for example, on the tariff case,

is a fascinating use, again, of this kind of illiberal democracy, because he's intimidating the court and saying, we're doing this for national security.

We're getting tons of revenue.