Is a tariff a tax? Many Americans have forgotten that this question, which has been in the news more or less all year, was fundamental to the American Revolution. And among American Patriots, or Whigs, meaning those who supported the colonists’ claims against Parliament, there was almost universal consensus that they were different things, constitutionally speaking.

Throughout the Imperial Crisis of 1763 to 1776, the consensus among the colonists was that Parliament had the right to regulate trade in the British Empire but had no right to tax the colonists. And they recognized that a regulation of trade might take the form of a duty imposed upon, for example, molasses imported from French colonies to favor molasses imported from British colonies.

The founding generation believed in the separation of powers.

In the colonists’ view, the Sugar Act of 1764 was an unconstitutional innovation. The Act was quite explicit, stating at the top that it was passed for the purpose of “applying the produce of such duties, and of the duties to arise by virtue of the said act, towards defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the said colonies and plantations.” It was the first trade act to do that.

Townshend’s overreach

The Stamp Act of 1765, and the reaction to it, made the protest against the 1764 Sugar Act less conspicuous. The result of the actions taken against the Stamp Act was that many in Parliament did not grasp the American argument against the Sugar Act. Hence, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts in 1767, imposing duties on lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea to raise revenue. When the colonists complained, many in Parliament accused the colonists of moving the goalposts.

The charge was not accurate, but it did reflect what they believed. And, like many today, many members of Parliament were unable to grasp the difference between a duty imposed for the purpose of trade regulation and a duty imposed for the purpose of raising revenue.

The most famous criticism of the Townshend Acts, and the most popular writing of the era until Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in January 1776, was John Dickinson’s “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.” In the second letter, Dickinson made the consensus Patriot argument logically, clearly, and eloquently.

There is another late act of parliament, which appears to me to be unconstitutional, and as destructive to the liberty of these colonies, as that mentioned in my last letter; that is, the act for granting the duties on paper, glass, etc.

The parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regulate the trade of Great Britain, and all her colonies. Such an authority is essential to the relation between a mother country and her colonies; and necessary for the common good of all …

I have looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from their first settlement to this time; and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till the Stamp Act administration.* All before, are calculated to regulate trade, and preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire. … The raising of a revenue thereby was never intended. … Never did the British parliament, till the period above mentioned, think of imposing duties in America for the purpose of raising a revenue. …

Here we may observe an authority expressly claimed and exerted to impose duties on these colonies; not for the regulation of trade; not for the preservation or promotion of a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire, heretofore the sole objects of parliamentary institutions; but for the single purpose of levying money upon us.

This I call an innovation; and a most dangerous innovation.* It may perhaps be objected, that Great Britain has a right to lay what duties she pleases upon her exports.

That so many people today don’t seem to understand this distinction is a sign that the American bar seems to have gone Tory. The founding generation’s way of thinking about tariffs, and perhaps law in general, is in danger of being rendered foreign to our public policy discussion, perhaps even to constitutional discussion, even among people who mistakenly think of themselves as originalists.

This way of thinking, of course, says little about the current case, as the purpose of the law itself must be understood in light of the thinking of the men who passed it. But it is also true that the way of thinking that Dickinson represented, and which was broadly shared in the founding generation, might have something to say here.

Delegation’s limits

The founding generation believed in the separation of powers. The founders recognized, as “The Federalist” notes, that in practice the powers will inevitably overlap and sometimes clash. But they did operate within a way of legal and constitutional thinking that took it as a given that in order to guard the separation of powers, any delegation of legislative powers to the executive had to be limited and focused.

There is a difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable delegation of powers, just as there is between a tax and a regulation of trade, even if, in both cases, money is raised at customs houses. The kind of delegation the Trump administration is asserting in this case is difficult, perhaps impossible, to reconcile with the practice of separation of powers. Congress has no right to abdicate its obligation to set trade policy via legislation.

RELATED: Read it and weep: Tariffs work, and the numbers prove it

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The Trump administration’s assertion that it has the right to set tariffs worldwide, claiming unlimited emergency power based on a law designed to delegate to the president a narrow emergency power, resembles the kind of expansive, arbitrary interpretation that the founders’ legal heroes fought.

In the 1630s, King Charles claimed the right to collect “ship money” throughout England. By tradition, the king had the right to raise money, without Parliament’s consent, in port towns in time of war, or if war was imminent.

King Charles asserted a living constitution interpretation: Given modern circumstances, he claimed a general right to raise taxes if a war emergency was imminent. Dickinson mentioned the case in the first Farmer’s Letters, suggesting there was a connection between the logic of the one argument and the other.

Our difficulty recognizing the limits of the nondelegation doctrine — and our confusion about the difference between a duty imposed to raise revenue and one imposed to regulate trade — shows how much work remains if we want to understand the Constitution as the framers did. That understanding requires grappling with the ideas about human nature, government, and law that justified ratification in the first place and that still anchor our constitutional order.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

​Tariffs, Trump, Trade policy, Taxes, Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, American founding, Townsend act, Sugar act, Trade, Emergency powers 

Law enforcement in Florida is looking for a female seen on video inside a bus beating up an elderly passenger last month.

A 70-year-old woman on Oct. 21 took a seat in the disabled section of a transit bus, the Broward County Sheriff’s office said, adding that “her ride would end with her battered and bruised after being attacked by a fellow bus rider.”

‘This is repulsive. This is something that should never happen; it should not happen in any type of civilized society. What this woman did is absolutely unacceptable.’

Detectives said the attacker, who was standing, bumped into the victim several times due to the movement of the bus, officials said.

The victim asked the attacker to give her some space, officials said, after which a verbal argument ensued.

With that, officials said the attacker “intentionally and forcefully pushed her body into the victim several times. The attacker then grabbed a grocery bag and struck her in the face with it.”

At one point during the assault, video appears to show the feisty elderly woman issuing a middle finger to her attacker.

The sheriff’s office said the victim used her cane to defend herself, and the attacker punched the victim multiple times in the head.

Officials said several bystanders on the bus came to the victim’s defense and separated her from the attacker.

RELATED: Insane video shows female beating up city bus driver before crash into restaurant — and then she actually keeps attacking him

The bus driver saw the incident and stopped the bus in the 4100 block of West Oakland Park Boulevard in Lauderdale Lakes, officials said, and that’s where the attacker and a woman with her fled.

The victim suffered bruising on her forehead but declined to be transported to the hospital, officials said.

“Fortunately the victim did not suffer any major injuries. She was treated on scene,” sheriff spokesperson Carey Codd told WFOR-TV.

Codd added, “This is repulsive. This is something that should never happen; it should not happen in any type of civilized society. What this woman did is absolutely unacceptable.”

Broward Sheriff’s Office Violent Crimes Unit detectives released video of the attack in hopes of identifying the woman who pestered the elderly woman before punching her repeatedly. You can view the sheriff’s office video here.

Those with information on the identity of the attacker or the woman with her are asked to contact BSO Violent Crimes Unit Detective Andres Lopez at 954-321-4915 or submit a tip through the SafeWatch app, officials said.

Those wishing to remain anonymous and be eligible for a cash reward can contact Broward Crime Stoppers at 954-493-TIPS (8477), submit a tip online at browardcrimestoppers.org, or dial **TIPS (8477) from any cell phone in the United States. If your tip leads to an arrest in this case, you are eligible for a reward of up to $5,000, officials said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Physical attack, Florida, Female attacks elderly woman on bus, Broward county sheriff’s office, Crime 

Federal prosecutors revealed a shocking indictment of two men from Texas who are accused of planning to assault the inhabitants of an island near Haiti and enslave the women and children.

Gavin Rivers Weisenburg, 21, of Allen and Tanner Christopher Thomas, 20, of Argyle allegedly plotted a coup d’état on Gonâve Island, which is a part of the Republic of Haiti.

Prosecutors said the two intended the plot to indulge their ‘rape fantasies.’

The plan involved recruiting and training homeless people from the Washington, D.C., area to build a mercenary force to attack the island inhabitants, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Texas.

“Weisenburg and Thomas intended to murder all of the men on the island so that they could then turn all of the women and children into their sex slaves,” the press release reads.

The pair partially completed many parts of their plan, including learning the Haitian Creole language, recruiting others into the scheme, and making operational and logistical plans. They intended to purchase firearms, ammunition, and a sailboat.

Prosecutors said the two intended the plot to indulge their “rape fantasies.”

Weisenburg enrolled at the North Texas Fire Academy in Rockwall in order to gain skills for the endeavor, while Thomas enlisted in the U.S. Air Force for the same reason.

The two are also charged with coercing a minor to commit sex acts on camera in August.

RELATED: UK woman said she wanted to be tortured and killed on fetish site — her body was found in shallow grave in the US

The pair allegedly plotted the island invasion from Aug. 2024 until July 2025.

There are about 87,000 inhabitants living on Gonâve Island, which measures about 266 square miles.

Weisenburg and Thomas face life in prison if convicted of federal conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country, and they face between 15 and 30 years in prison for charges of production of child pornography.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Texas island plot, Haitian island rape plot, Homeless mercenary force, Plot to attack island, Crime 

Donald Trump hasn’t even reached the end of his first year back in office, and John Doyle, Blaze Media’s newest TV host, says that already his “most optimistic expectations have been exceeded.”

“I’m looking forward to seeing what the administration does with its subsequent three years. However, it’s also undeniable that the first year of Trump’s second term has more Ws in it than, like, literally any year in his first term,” he says.

On this episode of “The John Doyle Show,” Doyle recaps the MAGA king’s biggest accomplishments.

Immigration crackdown

“Immigration is the most important issue,” considering that “under Joe Biden’s administration, literally tens of millions of illegals just waltzed right into the country,” Doyle says.

Immediately after his inauguration, President Trump turned off the spigot by declaring a national emergency at the southern border, directing 10,000+ military personnel to stop the influx. On the same day, he signed multiple executive orders to secure borders, end “catch and release,” and block most asylum entries at the southern border.

In the months that followed, he reinstated and expanded Remain in Mexico, signed the Laken Riley Act mandating detention for migrant criminals, dramatically ramped up ICE arrests and deportations (hundreds of thousands removed, with over a million self-deporting), and achieved the lowest illegal border crossings in decades — plummeting over 90% from prior peaks and delivering the most secure border in modern history.

Because of these efforts, Doyle says, “border crossings do not even exist anymore; they are a fable.”

He acknowledges, however, that what’s needed next is the “mass deportations” we were promised. “They must remove themselves or be removed from the balance sheet peacefully, very legally … and there’s no way around that fact.”

Bye-bye DEI

President Trump has “racked up pretty substantial wins when it comes to anti-white racism,” Doyle says. Previous administrations “spent trillions of dollars” building a “civil rights regime” that ironically “wound up just being this entity to discriminate against specifically white people as a matter of policy.”

In just months, President Trump has dismantled the federal DEI machine built over decades by Democrats. He eliminated all DEI programs, offices, positions, and preferences across the federal government; revoked longstanding affirmative action requirements for federal contractors; and directed agencies to combat illegal DEI practices in the private sector to restore merit-based opportunity and enforce colorblind civil rights laws.

“And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. … He signed an executive order banning anti-white indoctrination in K-12 schools; he signed an executive order in April to crack down on disparate impact in the federal government,” Doyle says.

On top of that, “the Trump administration also launched a major investigation into the entire University of California system for race- and sex-based hiring quotas,” Doyle continues. “It opened investigations into 45 universities, including Ivy League schools, over illegal racial preferences in student fellowships, academic programs, admissions practices.”

“The list goes on and on,” he adds.

Honorable mentions

Doyle praises Trump for issuing “a sweeping pardon” of January 6 protesters, “[directing] multiple federal agencies to investigate Antifa,” and “[adding] a $100,000 fee to the H-1B visa.”

He also convinced Israel “to accept a much earlier peace deal in Gaza than it would have liked to do. … He managed to avoid freaking war with Iran, freaking World War III, like everybody thought was going to happen,” Doyle says.

“The progress this administration has made has been remarkable, and we still have three years left to go.”

Want more from John Doyle?

To enjoy more of the truth about America and join the fight to restore a country that has been betrayed by its own leaders, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The john doyle show, John doyle, Blazetv, Blaze media, Trump wins, Trump year one, Immigration, Dei, Ceasefire, Donald trump 

Elon Musk says the next Tesla Roadster might fly. Not figuratively — literally.

Imagine an all-electric supercar that hits 60 mph in under two seconds, then lifts off the pavement like something out of “The Jetsons.” It sounds impossible, even absurd. But during a recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Musk hinted that the long-delayed Tesla Roadster is about to do the unthinkable: merge supercar speed with vertical takeoff.

If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big.

As someone who has test-driven nearly every kind of machine on four (and sometimes fewer) wheels, I’ve seen hype before. But this time, it’s not just marketing spin. Tesla is preparing a prototype demo that could change how we think about personal transportation — or prove that even Elon Musk can aim too high.

Rogan reveal

On Halloween, Musk told Joe Rogan that Tesla is “getting close to demonstrating the prototype,” adding with his usual flair: “One thing I can guarantee is that this product demo will be unforgettable.”

Rogan, always the skeptic, pushed for details. Wings? Hovering? Musk smirked: “I can’t do the unveil before the unveil. But I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveil ever.”

He even invoked his friend and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who once said, “We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters.”

Musk’s response: “I think if Peter wants a flying car, he should be able to buy one.”

That’s classic Elon — part visionary, part showman. But underneath the bravado lies serious engineering. Musk hinted at SpaceX technology powering the car.

The demonstration, now scheduled for April 1, 2026 (yes, April Fools’ Day), is meant to prove the impossible. Production could start by 2027 or 2028, but given Tesla’s history of optimistic timelines, it may be longer before any of us see a flying Roadster on the road — or in the air.

Good timing

Tesla’s timing isn’t accidental. The company’s Q3 2025 profits fell short due to tariffs, R&D spending, and the loss of federal EV tax credits. With electric vehicle demand cooling, Musk knows how to recapture attention: promise something audacious.

Remember the Cybertruck’s “unbreakable” windows? The demo didn’t go as planned — but it worked as a publicity move. A flying Tesla Roadster could do the same, turning investor eyes (and wallets) back toward Tesla’s most thrilling frontier.

Hovering hype

So can a Tesla actually fly? It may use cold-gas thrusters — essentially small rocket nozzles that expel compressed air for brief, powerful thrusts. The result could be hovering, extreme acceleration, or even short hops over obstacles.

There’s also talk of “fan car” technology, inspired by 1970s race cars that used vacuum fans to suck the car to the track for impossible cornering speeds. Combine that with Tesla’s AI-driven Full Self-Driving systems and new battery packs designed for over 600 miles of range, and the idea starts to sound just plausible enough.

The challenge? Energy density. Vertical flight consumes enormous power, and even Tesla’s advanced 4680 cells may struggle to deliver it without sacrificing range. And if the Roadster truly hovers, it will need reinforced suspension, stability controls, and noise-dampening tech to keep your driveway from turning into a launchpad.

Sky’s the limit

Musk isn’t the first to chase this dream. The “flying car” has tempted inventors since the 1910s — and disappointed them nearly as long.

In the optimistic 1950s, Ford’s Advanced Design Studio built the Volante Tri-Athodyne, a ducted-fan prototype that looked ready for takeoff but never left the ground. The Moulton Taylor Aerocar actually flew, cruising at 120 mph and folding its wings for the highway — but only five were ever built.

Even the military tried. The U.S. and Canadian armies funded the Avrocar, a flying saucer-style VTOL craft that could hover but not climb more than six feet. Every generation since has produced new attempts — from the AVE Mizar (a flying Ford Pinto that ended in tragedy) to today’s eVTOL startups like Joby and Alef Aeronautics, the latter already FAA-certified for testing.

The dream keeps coming back because it represents freedom — freedom from traffic, limits, and gravity itself.

Got a permit for that?

Here’s where reality checks in. The Federal Aviation Administration now classifies electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft under a new category requiring both airplane and helicopter training. You would need a pilot’s license, medical exams, and specialized instruction to legally take off.

Insurance? Astronomical. Airspace? Restricted. Maintenance? Complex. In short: This won’t replace your daily driver any time soon. Even if the Roadster hovers, the FAA isn’t handing out flight permits for your morning commute.

RELATED: You can now buy a real-life Jetsons vehicle for the same price as a luxury car

Image provided to Blaze News by Jetson

Free parachute with purchase

Flying cars sound thrilling until you consider what happens when one malfunctions. A blown tire is one thing; a blown thruster at 200 feet is another. Tesla’s autonomy might help mitigate pilot error, but weather, visibility, and battery reliability all pose major challenges.

NASA and the FAA are developing new air traffic systems to handle “urban air mobility,” but even best-case scenarios involve strict flight corridors, automated control, and years of testing.

In short: We’re closer than ever to a flying car — but not that close.

Sticking the landing

So will the Tesla Roadster really fly? Probably — at least for a few seconds. Will it transform personal transportation? Not yet.

But here’s the thing: Musk doesn’t have to deliver a mass-market flying car. He just has to prove that it’s possible. And that may be enough to reignite public imagination and investor faith at a time when both are fading for the EV industry.

If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big. If it flops, it will join the long list of “flying car” fantasies that fell back to Earth.

Either way, we’ll be watching — because when Elon Musk says he’s going to make a car fly, the world can’t help but look up.

​Elon musk, Tesla, Flying cars, Lifestyle, Auto industry, Align cars