Next week will be much more impactful than usual. Elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and New York City will provide us with real-time insight into the electorate’s mood. On November 5th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the Tariff cases. We may get a grasp on how the court will rule in this momentous area.

Off-year elections tend to favor the out-of-power party, and polls show Democrats leading in these elections. However, polls show the races in New Jersey and Virginia favor the Democratic Party. However, the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia are narrowing. Instead of being on the attack, the Democrats are back on their heels.

In New Jersey, the incumbent Governor is highly unpopular. High taxes and energy prices plague the state. Fealty to the “Green New Deal” sees unsightly windmills on the famous Jersey Shore. Yet the Democratic candidate seems devoid of workable ideas to right the ship, leaving the energetic Republican candidate on the offensive.  

The vast majority of Virginians oppose biological men on girls’ sports teams and in their bathrooms. An 80-20 issue, and Abigail Spanberger, the Democratic candidate, can’t find a way to align with the girls. Menacing messages from the Democratic Attorney General candidate included threats to an opponent’s children. Spanberger can’t even say he should drop out.

New York City is among the bluest places in America, but it has faced myriad problems. Businesses and people, especially high-value taxpayers, are moving out. High taxes, crime, deteriorating services, bad schools, and very high-priced housing have diminished the “Big Apple’s appeal since the heady Giuliani and Bloomberg mayoralties. The city has long been a creative melting pot. For instance, almost one in eight New Yorkers is Jewish.

The last two Democratic mayors did little to stem the tide, so many looked to their primary to produce someone with answers. What the city got was Zohran Mamdani, an anti-Israel Marxist Muslim. As I pointed out in my series on “The Future Party,” primaries favor the extremes in either major party. The party couldn’t come up with someone with real solutions—just someone spouting a bunch of failed ideas wrapped up in a young, glib package.

How free bus rides, and child care, coupled with city grocery stores and capped rents, solve the city’s decline is a mystery. Free stuff costs money. Raising taxes on the wealthy further incentivizes them to flee. Capping the price of anything always leads to less supply. That’s Econ 101. The only way you beat free market groceries is with subsidies, and that’s expensive. Marxists are always free with other people’s money.

The Democrats have only themselves to blame. When Mamdani won their primary, many encouraged Cuomo and Adams to run as independents—two tainted politicians who already proved to be lackluster against the young Marxist. With Republican Curtis Sliwa in the race, the opposition vote is divided, even with Adams now out.

Sliwa has no incentive to bail the Democrats out of their mess by dropping out. If you think Mamdani will be a disaster, you could vote for him. Republicans don’t like Cuomo or Mamdani, seeing both as out-of-touch progressives who won’t do anything for the city.

Now Democrats such as New York Governor Hochul and U.S. House Minority Leader Jeffries are endorsing him. What a gift to the Republicans. Having the ability to paint a Marxist anti-semite as the face of the Democratic Party forces every Democratic candidate to weigh in on their New York standard-bearer.

These off-year elections demonstrate difficulties for Democrats, raising the question: What would they do in power? Are they even talking about most people’s concerns? Within the party, the Social Democratic Marxists, such as Bernie Sanders and A.O.C., by virtue of their media prominence, seem to set the Democrats’ agenda—a very interesting off-year.

You’ve got to hand it to Ontario, Canada’s Premier Doug Ford. He knows how to get under President Trump’s skin. No fan of Trump’s tariffs, the province spent over $49 million on ads featuring clips of a Ronald Reagan speech, mostly extolling the benefits of free trade, to run on U.S. TV. Upon seeing the ad, Trump broke off trade talks with Canada. There is nothing illegal about a foreigner telling the other side of a dispute. Still, given the Ad’s editing, the President, backed by the Reagan Library head, cried foul.

The gist of Reagan’s 1987 talk (available in full on YouTube) was that the narrow tariff actions he’d authorized were exceptions to his commitment to free trade. Trump’s reaction in punishing Canada for something the Ontario premier did is akin to a British Prime Minister breaking off talks with the U.S. over something California Governor Gavin Newsom put on British TV. How is this action sensible in either case? Trump has since added anotherr 10% tariff.

Trump then went further, claiming Reagan “loved tariffs.” This assertion of common ground on tariffs between the two Presidents seems odd, given that the Reagan Administration negotiated what became the NAFTA Trade treaty with our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, which Trump so roundly criticized. The idea that Reagan and Trump were on the same page doesn’t hold water, given the Reagan administration’s support for the Uruguay Round, which eventually established the World Trade Organization and lowered tariffs worldwide.

So why is Trump so out of joint over the Ad? According to Trump, Canada is “illegally influencing” a pending Supreme Court case regarding tariffs.” He may have belatedly realized that the Supreme Court may not only uphold the lower courts but also severely limit the executive use of tariffs altogether.

How would this happen? Arguably, the court could rule that Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which lets the President impose a temporary import surcharges “in the form of duties” to “restrict imports,” is explicitly, narrowly, and with guardrails: no more than 15 percent and no longer than 150 days rather than the law, Tte International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA, Trump used to jusifhy his super-broad tariffs. That law defines the excutive’s tariff authority. Its limits can’t be exceeded. Except for a short, restricted term, tariff authority would rest with Congress, as the framers intended.

This outcome could cause a Trump freakout. Still, any ruling in his favor would destroy our separation of powers and undermine the Constitution. The court is well aware of this and should rule correctly.

The first week in November will tell us a lot about the direction of our country.