Fareed Zakaria

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.

All these deals have been done.

You undo the whole reputation and a set of relationships and deals I have made

Well, yes, but what you did was plainly unconstitutional.

I mean, literally, it is in the Constitution, in a line, not by implication or inference.

There is a line that says foreign commerce will be regulated by Congress.

Tariffs were regulated by Congress.

And by the way, they knew what tariffs were.

The reason we had the American Revolution was...