>>24111400notable

>if, for any reason, the Supreme Court were to rule against the United States of America on Tariffs, would be many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, and that doesn’t include the amount of “payback” that Countries and Companies would require for the Investments they are making on building Plants, Factories, and Equipment, for the purpose of being able to avoid the payment of Tariffs

President Trump:

I did this work a while ago, the POTUS is the "sole" organizer in all foreign affairs, embargos, and contracts of which a tariff is a contract and an international agreement. This is already a precedent and if they rule against tariffs then they should all be tried in a Military court for sedition and as a form of insurrection. Even if that doesn't happen, they still will have to deal with a promise. This is not a game, and our Country has been ripped off to the point of collapse. For God and Country, at all costs!!!

From Ask Brave: The Supreme Court ruling that established the President of the United States as the "sole organ" in the field of international relations is United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., decided in 1936.

In this case, the Court held that the President, as the nation's "sole organ" in international relations, possesses inherent and plenary powers in foreign affairs that are independent of congressional authorization.

Justice George Sutherland, writing for the majority, emphasized that the President has the exclusive authority to conduct foreign relations due to the need for secrecy, dispatch, and unity in international matters, which Congress and the courts cannot effectively provide.

This principle was further reinforced in subsequent cases, such as United States v. Belmont (1937), where the Court upheld the President's power to enter international compacts without Senate approval, reinforcing the idea that the President's role in foreign affairs is both unique and constitutionally grounded.

The Court's reasoning in Curtiss-Wright has been cited repeatedly to support broad executive authority in foreign policy, including the power to enforce embargoes and manage international agreements.