More Complicated Moral Debates, Please!

 Well, okay:

Speaking to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace on Thursday, Frum called Trump's tariff actions "the most extreme thing that he's ever done in this way."

"If there's one idea that runs through the American legal tradition and before that, the English legal tradition, it's that the executive cannot impose taxes without the consent of the legislature," he noted. "When Charles I in England, did it in the 1600s, the English cut off his head. When George III tried to do it in his own way, the United States started the American Revolution. This is the foundational idea."

But Amy Coney Barrett needs to know if there’s a “complicated moral debate” about it that “distinguishes it from other rights more traditionally recognized as fundamental that enjoy broad public support, including ‘the rights to marry, have sex, procreate, use contraception.’” Or, you know, does she need to pay attention to Art. I of the constitution, at all? Because if they can make up Presidential immunity, they can make up anything and say it’s in the Constitution.

In fact, does Art. I enjoy broad public support. ‘Cause that might be grounds to overrule it…🤔

Or maybe there’s a “complicated moral debate” over Art. I. Which is a principle of law as ancient as the Magna Carta. Isn’t it? Well, it should be, anyway.