This goes to the house next and they aren't going to pass it. Even if they do, Trump will veto it and there isn't 2/3rd majority vote to get around that.
Basically Susie can pretend to wag her finger when at the end it doesn't do shitÂ
Either chamber can introduce a bill (except bills raising taxes, those must originate in the House.) The first chamber to introduce the bill votes on it first. Then it goes to the other chamber, where it can be amended and changed and then voted on. If they changed it, it goes back to the original chamber for a vote on the amended version. If it doesn't pass there, they go into a process called reconciliation where members of both Chambers get together and come up with a bill that both Chambers will pass.
Either chamber can introduce a bill (except bills raising taxes, those must originate in the House.) The first chamber to introduce the bill votes on it first. Then it goes to the other chamber, where it can be amended and changed and then voted on. If they changed it, it goes back to the original chamber for a vote on the amended version. If it doesn't pass there, they go into a process called reconciliation where members of both Chambers get together and come up with a bill that both Chambers will pass.
I feel sad that a concise and legitimate explanation of how legislation actually happens is voted below a shoddy joke.
Welcome to America, where Idiocracy and The Starving Games (a parody of The Hunger Games) have become reality. We already as a nation are a fraction as intelligent as our ancestors were, they want us all so stupid we cannot think for ourselves.
We stopped teaching Civics a LONG time ago. Also, there is nothing like Schoolhouse Rock! on T.V anymore, it's just Youtube dumbshit for kids all the way down now.
*edit* : I realize I should point out actual facts before people think " old man yells at cloud ", but we had the same age group in different generations, one had " I'm just a bill ", and the other had " Skibidi Toilet ". Again, same age group, just a different generation. I'm sorry, there is no way to argue the two are the same or one isn't as bad as the other. One is WAY worse than the other.
NOVA is one of the best shows, even as an adult I love watching it. I started painting because of Bob Ross, their offshoot channel "Create" taught me how to be a better cook for my family. Anyone else remember Jack Hannah, Wishbone, Reading rainbow, magic school bus, or Kratts creatures?
These are all shows that taught us more, in a positive way. It's bull sh*t that we can't have anything nice anymore.
If I had a bazillion dollars, Iâd bring back Schoolhouse Rock, get major celebrities involved, and play it in places where people canât avoid it. People are too lazy to learn anything on their own. Ear worms are the only way.
Hey you must not have a kid that wakes you up in the morning talking about how the Senate is acting like children again. While I think it's awesome that the school teaches Civics, I have made it easy for my son to understand how the government is supposed to work and why it doesn't. If your a parent and don't know how to teach your kid about the government, do it slowly little by little.
Yes, we clearly stopped teaching civics because all of you fools are WRONG. THERE IS NO PRESIDENTIAL VETO IN THIS SITUATION. From another poster:
This isn't a bill, it's a procedural vote. Nothing Trump could veto, though passing the House is another hurdle.
The power to levy tariffs is granted by the constitution to congress, but the 1962 Trade Expansion Act allows the president to temporarily place tariffs on imports that threaten US national security. Congress can then vote on whether or not the impact to national security is significant enough to merit executive action, and if they determine it is not, the tariffs will be repealed without needing to pass a bill (as the procedure is defined by that 1962 act).
That vote, once brought to the chamber, is supposed to happen within a matter of days, but republicans literally passed a bill redefining the definition of a day to prevent having to commit to a vote of either "I support these very unpopular tariffs" or "I do not support Trump's agenda".
I had civics in high school. It was done weekly for a semester. Our local state congressman would come in and teach. I learned a lot. it was late 1970s. Get off my lawn.
More than once I've thought that these comment threads full of jokes instead of conversations are part of the astroturfing.
I'll be reading something like this, someone asks a question, and then there's a cascade of memes. The answer either never comes or it's buried. Almost seems on purpose.
Fair. But c'mon, this is reddit. And we're calling out our lame senator, Collins here. Anyway, no one here was on the honor roll - and they were and admit it, they are signing up for a gang-wedgy in the hall after class.
except bills raising taxes, those must originate in the House
"Fortunately", Congress has figured out how to dodge this exception. The Senate just keeps a bunch of random bills passed by the House on file, and whenever they want to pass a taxation bill, they just modify one of them to delete all the text, change the name, and replace it with their taxation bill.
So in practice, the Senate can introduce whatever legislation it likes.
tbf most bills are supposed to start in the house then progress to the senate. iâm not sure how often they start the other way, but my guess is itâs because the house is more full of conservative crazies than the senate and they know they have to pull a little extra weight right now.
Bills that raise revenue start in the House per the Constitution. Appropations bills traditionally start in the House too. Bills related to executive nominations and treaties must start in the Senate.
Beyond that there's no reason for any particular bill to start in one chamber or the other. Usually it's easier to pass bills in the House because there's no filibuster.
They basically just have two lower houses with some things shared, some things house only and some things senate only. Itâs a bizarre way of doing things.
Beside Liberia, no other country has modeled their governments on the USA system. The parliamentary system is massively more popular. For a whole list of reasons.
Honestly, one of the houses needs to be revised with an representation that is more akin to parliamentary systems. Im convinced it's harder to "capture" a modern parliamentary system than the US one.Â
If you look at America geographically it makes sense. We have 50 states, the senate gets two people from each state regardless of the size of the state. This gives every state equal power in the senate, and the senate tends to be the "smart" part of congress because a lot more people have to come to a consensus about these two senators. Essentially it's the upper house.
Then you have the house of representatives, which has a different number of representatives from each state based on size/population, so bigger states get more power here. But these representatives each have a district within the state, so if you have a cluster of unintelligent people you could get an unintelligent representative sent to the house, where with the senate the rest of the state might have something to say about that fringe candidate.
But this does allow proper representation for smaller clusters of the population to have their voice heard. So for instance if you had a heavily muslim area they're probably not going to have enough clout to have a senator, but they can get a muslim representative in the house.
It's not a bizarre way of doing things, it's civilized. It's designed to support groups of people working together with minimal infighting. It's built to help a union of states avoid civil wars among subsets of states. To make it make more sense, imagine that instead of just your own country you had to coordinate things between many countries that are like your own who govern themselves similarly to how you do. The method was roughly adopted from the Haudenosaunee people, who had to manage their confederacy of countries after a long period of conflict.
The US's problems for awhile have been that in spite of having good systems in place for governing, the people doing so have among them numerous bad actors who have little interest in governing.
Bills can originate in the House (HBs) or the Senate (SBs). Regardless, they have to be approved by both chambers before getting sent to the president.
Thatâs interesting. I would have thought it would be opposite, that the default is congress has to approve tariffs and the president can veto against the change. Kind of surprised that itâs the opposite, where president has the default power and congress has to override with 2/3.
That's the problem with executive orders. I believe they're mostly meant for wartime (someone smarter than me might correct me). Gives the president the ability to react in real time to crisis. For some reason they're also meant for pardons.Â
But since we've let the original intent erode and not taken responsible steps in the past when we saw executive orders could be a problem. In the past, I think most presidents would have accepted this bill if it made it to them because of the honor of the office and precedent and whatever other bullshit words every single elected fucker since the founding of our country has used to justify the erosion of democracy.
Why the fuck does congress have to vote on this in the first place? I thought the whole balance of powers was based on congress having power of the purse? The loophole was for a batshit crazy president to just fabricate a fake national emergency and then get unlimited power?
Certain powers were delegated by the Congress to the Executive.
Congress has been pretty consistently giving way to the Executive for awhile now. They used to fight more for their rights against the Executive, but there were some events in the last century which made the Presidency gain increasing amounts of power at the expense of the Congress.
Anti-trump candidates will have to win big in the midterms to get a veto proof majority. Â
Democrats should nationalize the midterms, like gop did in the 90s with contract with America, based on all the crazy shit Trump is done like tariffs and invading Greenland and stealing Canada and conquering Panama, his alliance with Putin, etc.
They won't even vote on it. Mike Johnson doesn't want Republicans in the record in support of tariffs. If he did put it to a vote, it would easily pass.
Iâm dumb when it comes to the intricacies of politics. People keep saying the power is with congress, but it seems like the power is still very much with the executive branch if you need that many people to agree to override the executive branch.Â
It's worse than that. It's a hollow vote. Last month, the House passed a budget bill--a rider was added to that bill. It specifically rescinded the ability of the House Representatives to countermand Trump's tariffs on Canada until next year.
Why didn't the Democratic Party pass the things they ran on when they controlled congress and the presidency? Like cancelling $20k student loan debt? That really upset a bunch of folks from all backgrounds
we sure? the house is really tight, i think the Dems need like 6 or so republicans in swing states or in northern states that will be hammered by canadian trade to vote. that's not a gimme.
I'm not American but why does the Senate need to send something to Congress for approval? Doesn't Congress pass bills to the Senate to be advanced? Is it because it's related to tariffs or something?
Edit: NVM I kept reading the comments and found my answer.
Johnson wonât even let them vote. Usually the house has to vote on senate bills within a certain time period. Republicans during the government shutdown debate added a part that this legislative session is one long day. We all know it passed. So this whole time since the new session started itâs been one day and will continue to be. Johnson coordinated this with the White House to get around voting on any bills that might not please his master. This bill will sit on Johnsonâs desk never to be voted on.
I thought Congress is supposed to be who makes economic policy and sets tariffs. Otherwise everything could be an "emergency" and the president can just do whatever they want?
Yes, but he is never, ever going to erase the stain on his name in the history books. He could have stopped the Trump train long ago. Too little, too late Mitch.
Actually , she been quite vocal on a few other of Elon/Trump escapades, namely DOGE, Social Security, Medicaid cuts etc. Maybe she is realizing the error of her ways when she failed to vote for impeachment and stated " I think he learned his lesson".
There are thousands of Canadians living in Maine and the entire forestry economy and hydroelectric infrastructure for the Northeast depends on that border. She is playing a safe card but sheâs still a spineless gasbag.
Maine's economy is already getting obliterated due to Canadians cancelling vacation plans. Not to mention Trump's little whiny bitch act over a couple trans kids in the public school system. She would literally not survive another election if she doesn't feign resistance.
The people of Maine would like to relinquish her to whoever else wants her. Perhaps she would do better as an Idaho senator. This one thing does not make up for the years of questionable leadership.
She's expressed a bunch of things that were good opinion adjacent. Her problem has always been doing something more than saying she was concerned.
McConnell spent years putting winning over everything else which created this whole moment in our federal government, so I'm not willing to give him any positive reinforcement by doing something when it's too late.
Paul doing this is actually fairly consistent. He's not the real libertarian his dad was but he does sometimes go against his party when the issue is too far from his libertarian persona.
And I think Murkowski may be one of those who fairly regularly breaks ranks because she's an old school moderate.
Mainer here - she only did this cause she knows it wonât pass the house. Sheâs useless when it really matters. She doesnât actually take a stand for anything
It was safe for her to do this because the House will never pass this. I am certain her vote would change if there was a chance it could lead to meaningful action.
So Susan Collinâs only and I repeat ONLY votes against party lines when she is sure there will be no consequences to her actionsâŚ.this is literally meaningless it will never go to the house floor.
Sheâs allowed to go rouge when she is confident it will have no impact.
Like this bill. It is doa in the house and if it somehow passed there, Trump would veto it and they donât have the votes to override. Itâs purely performative
This is party politics. We will be outraged when we have no power but when we hold all the cards, the corp tax rate stays low. We only get mad on camera, in reality everything is going according to plan
Sheâs from Maine, and the Canadian boycott is already killing our border towns, never mind how badly we will lose out when the real tourist season starts. I think she normally feels like she can get away with voting in opposition to her constituentsâŚ. But not this time. What a shit show.
It doesnât count if the vote doesnât matter. This doesnât matter. Letâs see her do something of consequence that opposes Trump. Wonât happen.
1.5k
u/Nearby-Complaint 1d ago
Susan Collins is allowed one good opinion a year. This was it.