Well, howdy there, Internet people, it's Bell again.

So today, we're going to talk about how the tariffs are back on for now.

This morning, we talked about how the Trump administration would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,

and seek a stay while the block on Trump's Liberation Day tariffs

makes its way through the court system and eventually to the Supreme Court. And now is probably

the moment to go over the constitutional aspects of some of the early rhetoric being presented.

The short version of this is in the order from the appeals court.

The request for an immediate administrative stay is granted to the extent that the judgments

and the permanent injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in these cases

are temporarily stayed until further notice, while this court considers

the motion's papers. The administration is still saying, quote, the court should have no role

here. The spokesperson also said, quote, there is a troubling and dangerous trend of

unelected judges inserting themselves

into the presidential decision-making process. America cannot function if President Trump,

or any other president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations

railroaded by activist judges. Reminder, federal judges are not

elected. One of the activist judges in question was appointed by Trump and another by Reagan.

And the court in question is an inferior court established by Congress with the Customs Courts Act of 1980,

but has its roots in courts going back to the 1800s. Article 3, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution,

says, quote, the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts

as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. As far as the idea that the courts can

insert themselves or that the courts have no role, Article 3, Section 2 says, quote,

...