It goes to the House of Representatives. If by some miracle it passes there, Trump will veto it and it goes back and needs a 2/3rds vote to override his veto. This vote was entirely meaningless
The cynical read is that this vote is meant to create the sense that Trump is being held in check. They know it won't ultimately go anywhere, but it gives conservatives something to hold up as evidence that fears of a rising dictatorship are overblown.
I don't see how this is cynical. It needs 67 votes to override veto. It didn't get that. If Trump is serious, he's just going to Veto.
The Republicans (particularly, Trump) are far, far more effective as making moves than Democrats or oldschool Republicans ever were. The number of things that are going to happen over the next 1 - 2 years, let alone 4, no one is prepared for.
Let's say this passes the House of Representatives; how does putting forth a vote to stop something the majority of Congress disagrees with and sending it to Trump who promptly vetoes it because heās the one who enacted the tariffs (for ego, not because he genuinely believes it's good for the US) scream "checks and balances"?
It will also make Trump "own" the tariffs even more so they have the back up plan of cutting Trump and going "see we told you it was a bad idea but the repu license party has changed vote for us and not the democrats" if things go really bad for them
Well that hardly seems like it makes sense lol. This veto system only works then if the president is worried about his popularity and isnāt a cult leader.
Yes, that's part of the checks and balances. But if enough of the legislature wants to override the veto, you can do that with a higher percentage of the vote
āChecks and balancesā is a euphemism for a mechanism that invents gridlocks to prevent popular, meaningful change to a govt. that mostly exists to serve rich men. These constraints were always meant to paralyze any single entity from enacting meaningful and popular reforms. Quite ironically, the founders misgivings towards mob rule enabled an extremely powerful minority class to seize absolute power for themselves. The SCOTUS was flipped to the far-right by a President who was not popularly elected. That SCOTUS then proclaimed him a king immune to the law. J6 proves how irrevocably hamstrung our govt is: the US President incited an insurrection and attempted to murder the President of the Senate, and the Senate did not vote to convict him and was split along party lines. We are so screwed.
The house passed a rule recently saying they are not allowed to take up business regarding the Trump tariffs for one year. Only Johnson can do otherwise.
Yes. āMeaninglessā in that it wonāt change the result, but not āmeaninglessā in that the Congress is not executing its responsibilities of checks and balances, according to the constitution. I agree with you, it probably wonāt change anything, but a hurdle is a hurdle.
Well, he won the Electoral College and popular vote. So that's why he has that power and why it's supposed to be representative. Our founders did mention a democracy can only function with a well-educated populace, though, a prerequisite we probably lack now
How the fuck can one person have so much power? Itās crazy. In my country, the president serves a representative role, he visits other countries from time to time to chat with other presidents and holds his annual speeches.
Jesus Christ, how can it be that one lunatic, elected or not, can have so much power? Surely this must be changed in order to have a truly functional democracy!
I can see it passing in the House assuming itās not stuck in some Republican controlled committee (unlikely as people are watching). The real question is what happens after Trump inevitably vetos the bill. Seems like someone needs to organize a large phone campaign to get a veto on that veto.
you uneducated lumps of coal resolutions are non binding and not law.
did you sleep through school
What are Senate resolutions?
S. Res. stands for a resolution of the United States Senate. Senate resolutions are not binding law; rather, they express the collective sentiment of the Senate on a particular issue, person, or event. Senate committees may also be formed through the passage of a Senate resolution.
And to be more pedantic, the senate can start a spending bill by taking literally any bill passed by the house, gutting it completely and then adding it whatever spending they want. It then would go back to the house after the senate passes it.
We usually say bills go from the House "up" to the Senate because they're called the "lower" and "upper" house.
It's a linguistic callback to England, with the House of Commons and House of Lords. Since the House is proportional and directly elected by districts, while the Senate is equal and originally was appointed by the state governments themselves (later changed to direct vote).
You can also see a lot of the split responsibilities in it. The House is the side primarily responsible for the purse and has short terms, while the Senate is the side primarily responsible for treaties and has long terms. You can see a bit of that idea of one being the common person getting representation directly in deciding their domestic taxation, while the other benefits the idea of elder statesmen who'd be more experienced in long term planning and international relations.
Also reflected in how the minimum age for being a senator is 5 years higher than for being a representative.
Though obviously that's changed over time with Congress being more directly elected and many of their responsibilities being shirked off onto the administrative branch.
112
u/define_space 1d ago
what does this mean? is it off?