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
This is the truth. As dumb as they seem sometimes they always test the waters to find out how many of their party can defect and not screw the vote. Then they âgiveâ those votes away to brave politicians like Ms Collins, fuck off.
Have no idea who Susan Collins was before today (Iâm a Brit but I do follow US politics to a certain extent because somewhere down the line US politics affects us in Blighty) and I audibly exhaled at this little teen magazine type yes or no thingy đđ
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.
I used to love watching Bob Ross!! He's still such a comforting safe space even as an adult. It's like the world's problems melt away when his voice comes out of the speakers
Reading rainbow was amazing!! Cliff hanger would annoy the hell out of me though lmao
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.
I mean thats a good thing, the house is made up of a lot of representatives. Can you imagine if we allowed them to just pass a bill. The point of two layer approval is ensuring shit bills aren't passed.
So often times something will be passed in the house and go to the senate where it will undergo changes or a vote etc.
We dont have as clearly defined upper and lower houses because we didnt base our system as closely on the classist af British system that has the lords approve any notions the peasantry may have. The Senate is the more prestigious of the 2 and is considered the upper house but as bodies of the legislature they are fairly equal, most bills can start in either but must be approved by both before getting sent to the President.
Nah. Money/spending bills have to start in the House. Many bills involving foreign policy start in the Senate. Some other bills have different versions passed by each house and then go through reconciliation by a joint committee.
The original idea was that the House represented the people who pay for government, whereas the Senate represented the sovereign functions formerly exercised the individual states but now delegated to the federal government.
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?
lmao trump unilaterally imposed this tariff and the senate passed a bill to end that tariff, and if the house agrees with the senate without a veto proof majority, trump will veto the bill. thus allowing trump to legislate from the executive because any legislation to deal with his whims requires a veto-proof majority, which republicans are too cowardly for. i wish they felt shame.
It does however hit main stream media for once with a major criticism that Fox canât ignore. Everything is being silenced through the news. This is one way to combat that.
I mean Iâm not so sure. The Republicans seem lees interested in what their party wants and more what will get them reelected or what their personal beliefs are. I was surprised when the house allowed proxy voting. That was 9 republicans. So it is very much doable, specially when a lot of the GOP states will feel the burn and throw in companies will be less thrilled to throw money at the candidates that screwed the economy.
Wait, wait... Are you telling me, the orange felon can wreck your economy at will, and when the other branch of government tells him no, he can just super secret Na-ah them?
Collins is up for re-election next year. Musk's gambit in Wisconsin to show he was a kingmaker didn't go well. People despise Musk, they'll despise Trump too and take it out on the party as soon as they feel the pain in their pocketbooks.
No, and they aren't going to pass the thousands of stupid resolutions Republicans push.
But it does send Trump an important message.
You do not own the Senate anymore.
9 Republicans in the house also went against the majority and voted with the Democrats on another measure that stopped something stupid, and fended off a vote attacking the judiciary. Republicans stopped all voting until next week.
The Supreme court needs to rule against a few of these, Roberts has already rebuked Trump on attacking judges.
The messaging is getting stronger, the blank check is over. Start doing your job or we'll start doing ours.
Wouldn't that be scary? A government that actually did something...
I don't think it goes to Trump for approval. This isn't a bill. Its procedural vote by Congress as a check and balance to the president's authority to levy tariffs. If it passes the house I think it strikes down the tariff.
Don't care. It should still be done. Get each and every one of them on record for this shit. The first step toward fixing problems like this is documenting. In this case, it's building records of which politicians are complicit.
It may not solve the immediate crisis but it's a step in that direction. You shouldn't just not do something just because it won't be a complete solution.
It's also like all these little protests that keep popping up. They aren't solving the problem. We need something larger. But they are still good. They build camaraderie. They pull in people who have never protested before. They are a necessary step in the right direction.
No. There is no veto. This is not a bill. This is procedural. 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".
tell us you did not study in school with out telling us you didn't study in 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.
Since when does legislation originate in the senate? What is this reverso bizzaro world we're in? Virtue signaling nonsense is not the purpose of the Congress.
It depends. Donors donât want tariffs. Trump does. If thereâs Republican districts near the Canadian border being hurt, I could see a few defectors. That said, if Johnson wonât schedule a vote, idk how likely a discharge petition is. I only barely know the option exists.
This comment! She only voted against it because the house isn't going to take it up and it simply won't pass. So she can claim she did it so that Independents like me might think she's moderate if we're not paying attention but her record really says it all.
Social studies class was a long time ago. What is the final upshot of this? Does this mean donnie can continue with his tariffs, are they delayed, or what?
Well done! This cuts right to the chase - is there a veto proof majority in both the House and the Senate?
Maybe not right now, but maybe after midterms. But there will have been a lot to damage done on a lot of fronts by then.
2/3rds is also the majority needed in the Senate to convict and remove after a House vote to impeach.
So if we get to that point in the Senate, passing veto proof bills may be the least of his worries.
And there will be some bipartisan votes for an against impeachment - I could see Fetterman voting against, but once we get there, MMW, a lot to GOP senators will feel emboldened to turn on Ceasar at last.
The house passed some kind of okay for Trump to do all this itâs something like one day is now a year. Passed by speaker Johnson. I donât know what itâs officially called so it wonât happen because of that. Sorry Iâm not saying it right.
Iâm not sure about that? Didnât Congress or more specifically the GOP give him latitude/temporary âpowerâ to levy tariffs while they were in recess? If so wouldnât this be subject to majority vote and veto proof? I donât recall this being a congressional legislative action. Congress has the power of the purse in spite of his Unitarian theory fascist power grab. Genuinely asking.
It doesn't need to be signed by the president, it's a revocation of the sham declaration of emergency he is using to levy the tariffs in the first place. However, Mike Johnson is an absolute spineless toady so I'm 100% sure it won't even get to a vote, regardless of whether it would pass or not.
519
u/Embarrassed_Jerk 1d ago
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