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.

Presidents consistently follow the War Powers Resolution's 48-hour notification rule but include language asserting their inherent Article II authority to act unilaterally. This creates a constitutional paradox: they perform the actions required by the law while simultaneously arguing the law doesn't actually constrain them.

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 Constitution lacks an "immigration clause." The Supreme Court established this authority as an "inherent power" derived from national sovereignty, not specific text. This plenary power, created by judicial interpretation, is assigned to Congress.

A president can legally initiate military actions like a blockade without congressional approval by first designating the target regime as a 'Foreign Terrorist Organization.' This provides a separate legal playbook and set of executive powers, circumventing the formal declaration of war process.

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.

Senator Elizabeth Warren argues that the separation of powers is not self-enforcing; it depends on each branch jealously guarding its own authority. A constitutional crisis arises when Congress becomes compliant and allows the executive branch to usurp its powers.

Despite expected legislative gridlock, investors should focus on the executive branch. The president's most impactful market tools, such as tariff policy and deregulation via executive agencies, do not require congressional approval. Significant policy shifts can therefore occur even when Congress is divided and inactive.