The president's pardon power applies only to federal crimes. However, a president can issue a symbolic "pardon" for a supporter convicted on state charges. While legally void, this action serves as a powerful political signal to followers that the president stands with them, demonstrating a use of the pardon power for pure messaging.

A key legal defense for presidential tariff authority, highlighted in Supreme Court arguments, is the paradox that the president can enact a total trade embargo but is supposedly blocked from imposing a minor tariff. This reframes tariffs not as a separate power but as a lesser-included action within existing executive authority.

The Trump administration's strategy for control isn't writing new authoritarian laws, but aggressively using latent executive authority that past administrations ignored. This demonstrates how a democracy's own structures can be turned against it without passing a single new piece of legislation, as seen with the FCC.

The presidential pardon system, intended as a tool for justice and clemency, has been perverted into a transactional mechanism. It now primarily serves the wealthy and politically connected, diverting resources and attention from its core mission of correcting injustices for ordinary people caught in a flawed system.

The process of presidential clemency has devolved into a monetized system where freedom is potentially for sale. The speaker claims that for a price between $500,000 and $3 million, one could navigate the right channels to secure a presidential pardon, effectively turning a tool of justice into a corrupt commodity.

Cheering for a president to use executive orders or emergency powers is short-sighted. The opposition will eventually gain power and use those same expanded authorities for policies you oppose, creating a cycle of escalating executive action.

The Supreme Court is systematically dismantling laws that protect heads of independent agencies (like the CFPB and FTC) from being fired at will. This aligns with the "unitary executive theory," concentrating power in the presidency and eroding the apolitical nature of regulatory bodies.

The legal battle over President Trump's tariffs and President Biden's student loan forgiveness both hinge on the "major questions doctrine." This Supreme Court principle asserts that if the executive branch exercises a power with vast economic and political impact based on ambiguous statutory language, the Court will rule against it, demanding explicit authorization from Congress.

The War Powers Resolution's 60-day limit is triggered by "hostilities." The Obama and Trump administrations exploited the term's ambiguity, arguing that military actions like drone strikes against an enemy that cannot retaliate do not count as "hostilities," thus avoiding the need for congressional authorization.