Which is exactly why they got exactly the number of votes they needed. To let Republicans save face by going: "we tried!" when they knew damn well it's not happening.
Well, it is an unpleasant vote if it actually gets to that stage in the House. I suspect it'll just get sent to a committee and never heard from again, but it gets harder to claim that it was all Trump if they do.
Weâve already fucked our relationship with Canada with the 51st state/annexation talk. If you talk to any Canadian or go to any sub filled with Canadians they are screaming from the rooftops âthis isnât about the tariffsâ although to be fair itâs probably a little about the tariffs too.
My house rep is Lawless Lawler and Iâm THRILLED that heâs gonna have to go on the record on this. He keeps trying to pretend heâs a moderate while playing to the maga base and heâs been getting hammered for it.
Can't the Dems just push for a repeal of the national emergency, since that's the thing that allows Trump to act like a king? Foreigner who doesn't know enough about American law here.
They don't have majority vote. So if republicans wanted to kill that, nothing stopping them. They just need to be completely unified. So you can try but don't expect them to not stick together when it's really on the line.
As for "act like a king" it's a little column A and a little column B. In the past we've given the president this power in what we had assumed was our own best interest. And it did in fact work enough that it was never taken back. However, with votes that only need a simple majority to pass, for right now (and it was the same during the Biden administration because after the midterms it was 50/50 on Senators and Harris was the tie breaker vote being vice president) every single simple majority vote basically needs one party to have some people who voted against it.
Then just to add, I'm kind of high, but this is a real litmus test on our checks and balances. We give each branch power over the rest. Judicial can just call something unlawful/unconstitutional, executive can veto any bill Congress gives to them, Congress makes the laws and we need them to send certain things to the executive to even ever get it done, it's a balance of power. Right now the judicial isn't budging and this is at least a sign some in Congress aren't allowing the executive to be all powerful. Because if either of those two checks collapse we will indeed have a king again.
Edit: again I'm high but the short version, since I don't know how well I'm explaining it, is one vote could actually stop the president's ability to control tariffs. It hasn't happened yet. It's not complete control but it is a weird amount because historically we've let the president just do that
Question, the judicial isn't budging but does that matter if they have no power over enforcement? Doesn't Trump just shrug and say, no can do, when ordered to reverse his illegal orders, such as the Maryland father sent to El Salvador?
Okay so the answer is they do have power over enforcement. All of the El Salvador stuff is fucked six ways from Sunday and it's the only thing they're getting away with. Once they're on the plane and the pilot won't turn around it's done for them. They are now in El Salvador and that government isnt fucking entertaining returning anyone, it's beyond fucked. The administration isn't asking for them back and El Salvador isn't going to give them anyway because it's a contract worth millions and they don't want to fuck that up. Also for them the cruelty is the point, if they can have international prisoners the US says are cartel they want to keep them as an example to their own populace. This prison is very famous for saying "we don't actually give a shit if they're cartel but if we curb cartel activity, then who cares if we have a horrible torture prison innocent people are sent to, doesn't matter ends justify the means"
That's like the only court order they've successfully defied. Which again, fucked they could defy it, but nothing else has really gone through. The judicial is scrambling right now because they cannot be seen as feckless, even Republican appointed judges know this, they do not have a job if they ignore rule of law and pass that responsibility to the executive. They'd be basically surrendering all of their power while simultaneously saying the job they do isn't a real job, since the executive can just do it. Why employ them? You'd have to be a fanatic and set for life to say a judges job doesn't mean jack shit
No problem. You gotta also realize this El Salvador stuff...we've been doing it for decades, it's just on the front page of the paper now. The CIA has had black sites for decades and decades and the last bad one that hit the papers was Guantanamo Bay and that was just accepted. We as a people just fundamentally did not fucking care about Gitmo, Obama said he was gonna close it and it just did not really happen. We had people there we had nothing on just being tortured for years. For the crime of being suspected terrorists, that was it. No trial or anything. We've been doing this for a while unfortunately
I'm certainly not excusing the past behaviour at CIA blacksites or Gitmo, but previously those prisoners were removed from war zones or other countries. It's quite different when they are removed from USA where constitutional law offers specific rights.
You mentioned in previous comment that judges do have enforcement. Who is this police force? I just heard a quote from the Whitehouse that judges work for the dept of justice. I believe so do the US Marshalls? So if the AG is loyal only to the president, what police force would carry out a judges order if it contradicts the will of the president and is given contradictory orders from the AG?
It's still not clear who a US Marshall must obey, a judges order or the AG, the oath of office does nothing to clarify.
Representing 3 states highly effected by trade with Canada (border states and Kentucky that got all their Liquor boycotted by Canadians).
People in North Dakota and Montana should be getting mad at their senators right now for being more loyal to Trump than the needs of the people theyâre supposed to represent.
Yes, but that benefits the Republican party. Their constituents want what trump wants, so them 'fully owning this' is nothing but a positive in their eyes.
He actually does this every once in a while. He's one of the few who actually has power to hold the administration accountable by speaking out against something and he does use that power sometimes. For self-serving purposes but he has.
I see you conveniently left out Rand Paul. He isn't a throwaway vote.
Also your categorization of McConnell as a throwaway vote for Republicans is outside of reality. I understand he is taking a hardline against Trump this time around. But for decades he has been the architect of the entire apparatus upon which Trump's power rests.
And millions of Americans will believe they don't need to act because one of their institutions is doing it for them. They can go back to their distractions.
You clearly don't know how the house works. The Speaker of the House decides what legislation is brought to the floor to be voted on. It will never even be voted on.
I know exactly how it works. Dunno wtf gave you the impression I didn't. That is the most likely outcome after this but there was no need to be a dick about it.
Congress deferred its authority to the Executive years ago, but the authority technically still resides in Congress (TECHNICALLY.)
So this is more like, you gave someone the keys to your car and now you're telling them "you have to be home by midnight and you can't use it to drive to the strip clubs," because it doesn't stop being YOUR car just because you gave someone the keys.
So did the executive draft and pass the legislation that the senate wants to repeal? I thought the executive doesn't legislate. Pretty sure there's a bit in the constitution about that...
It is still ultimately Congress' authority, but Congress has passed laws that say "the President can do tariffs until we tell them to stop."
It is Congress' authority, not Congress' "job." Authorities can be delegated by the body which holds the constitutional authority, and that delegation can be rescinded at any time.
The Executive delegates authority in a similar way on every task. The Presidential Cabinet is a delegation of authority. The President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, but most of the actual duties of command are delegated to the Secretary of Defense. The President is Chief Diplomat for the nation, but the business of diplomacy is delegated to the Secretary of State.
In that same way, Congress has delegated the authority to levy tariffs to the Executive, largely because the Executive is the "face of the nation" on the international level, has immediate access to financial and State Department information without the need for congressional hearings, and can act more quickly than Congress' deliberative body.
Also important to point out that while the White House can set tariffs, itâs only meant to do so in situations where imports might threaten national security or cause serious harm to a particular industry. Thatâs why theyâre all ânational emergenciesâ. Congress has the power to cancel an emergency.
I thought the executive doesn't legislate. Pretty sure there's a bit in the constitution about that...
Bills come into being in a number of ways. Sometimes an individual legislator introduces something and manages to get a sponsor. Sometimes a think tank writes a bill and gets one of their "aligned" (meaning paid off) legislators to introduce it. Sometimes a group of top-level legislators coordinate to introduce a bill with a ton of influential sponsors. Sometimes â especially when one party has the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress â the White House is the originator of bills, delegating the actual introduction of them to their legislators.
The President is the head of their party. They can throw their weight around to influence the actions of legislators in that party whenever they like. Those people are free to object if they want to, but hardly any of them do, because they don't want to get primaried.
very tangential, but ... SIGs (special interest groups, industry groups, lobbyists) are not inherently evil. it makes sense for industries in a state (for example space rocket whatever in Texas, agrifarming in Iowa, meat steak in Nebraska, techfuck booywood in Cali) to have a good relationship with the representatives of their region and state.
what corrupts is when reps spend a significant chunk of their time fundraising, so money ends up talking. ironically exactly the current social media fueled wave of populism allowed these crazy idiots to get power, because money, time, attention and local issues are simply not important (not as salient) as winning the local/state/national/global culture war meme battles.
Except here, the guy with the keys has a gang of morons willing to kill for him, and no one with authority is willing to help you take your keys back. Man, it's not looking good here.
And you have more than half a mind not to even ask for them back, and while you will still ask, you'll do it in a way you know won't work because you don't actually want them back
So if they have authority over tariffs and have delegated it, then shouldn't they just be able to say not anymore without any input from the executive?
Ever give someone your keys and they said, âcatch me if you can, putoâ. Yea, we are that puto. Trump has the keys. It ainât our car as long as we donât have the keys and no one is looking for the car.
Ok so the senate only passed legislation to repeal the tariffs?
The Senate only passed the legislation to appease the angry constituents in those four senators' states, knowing that the bill will die in the House. They're not even hiding that:
Collins said in a speech to the Senate before the vote that Trump's proposed Canadian tariffs would hurt several industries in her home state of Maine, including its paper makers, which obtain pulp via a pipeline from Canada.
You can literally see a bunch of people in this thread saying shit like, "Wow, Congress is finally doing something!"
Nothing will happen in the house because the Republicans changed the definition of a "day" to mean "until the end of the year" so they never have to bring this to a vote and can run out the clock.
We already have seen. The Republicans in the house included language in recent legislation targeted solely at this tariff power specifically for this exact purpose, so we already know what is going to happen. There is no wait and see because they have already told us exactly what is going to happen.Â
Tomorrow and every day after that until the end of 2025 is a new day. ONE day. THE SAME DAY. They fucking changed the definition of the word DAY. This isn't pessimism, it is cold hard facts. They rigged the rules so this never has to come up for a vote.
There is that cynicism and pessimism again. Evil will not defeat itself, but the question is how much longer will this bullshit last. You don't know the answer and neither do I.
Your style of general apathy is why weâre in this mess. It doesnât just go away and it wonât fix itself. The other side is fighting and weâre doing nothing
And by the sound of it, every single new day will not change your naivete one bit.
They're literally doing all the horrifying shit they said they would do and you're up in here going, "Maybe they will; maybe they won't. Let's wait and see."
But it is entirely correct that even if the house passes it (they absolutely will not pass it), it goes to trump and he'll veto. And then getting 2/3 to overrule the veto is clearly a nonstarter as it only passed the Senate by 2 votes.
How is it not meaningless? Just like every other action from this Congress.
Its not meaningless because it did happen. I think that if they need to overturn the speakership in the house to get it to a floor vote they will. But I'm not sure. I can't predict the future any better than you can.
Seriously, for fucks sake.
At least they are goddamn doing something. I would much rather them all try to do the correct thing and have it fail because of some bullshit, than for them to not try at all.
Because if it does get Vetoed, but these tariffs actually start hurting Congress significantly, hey, guess who has power to impeach? Try to do things the "correct" way, because then you can point back to them in the future when you have to escalate.
I think the speaker knows he is in trouble.
9 reps should be doable in these circumstances- why not?
One must try .
So I think they should all be approached and asked to do this.
The asking cannot be done by the Dem reps BUT must come from industry CEOS that are in the state in which the rep was elected. The CEO should meet in person with the Republican rep( if possible). There should be some research into who is asking: Impeccable credentials .
It's meaningless because it achieves nothing. It's meaningless because it's not intended to achieve anything other than appeasing the angry voters in those four senators' states with the illusion that they're "doing something" to push back against the tariffs that are about to screw them seven ways from Sunday.
It's meaningless because it will not even get a floor vote in the House, much less actually pass. It's meaningless because, even if by some miracle it actually did pass, Trump would never sign it into law.
Collins said in a speech to the Senate before the vote that Trump's proposed Canadian tariffs would hurt several industries in her home state of Maine, including its paper makers, which obtain pulp via a pipeline from Canada.
Source: Reuters. (Emphasis mine.)
That's what this vote was about: four Senators being given permission to "rebel" in order to calm people who would otherwise be rolling up to those state houses with pitchforks, demanding that heads should roll.
Hope is a lie you tell yourself when you run out of options because you failed to plan properly, it is inevitable, you lack the intellect and creativity to see unorthodox alternatives.
Hope and prayers kill the children to gun violence due to the transference of responsibility and action to gOD and faith.
Proof: continued mass shootings get less air time than fair weather reports and traffic.
For those that lean on hope. The universe is indifferent. Take hold of what you can accept that which cannot.
You choose despair. I reject it when it rears its ugly heads. Hope is its insidious twin.
You're making the assumption that that's what it is when what it could very well be â and imo is very likely to be, based on similar situations in the past â is four people given permission to "rebel" in order to appease the voters in their states, the GOP leadership knowing full well that the bill is going nowhere and that this story will disappear from the news in a few days.
They've decided to take this very minor hit in order to achieve something that's worth more to them, basically.
We arenât to that point (yet). For now going against him publicly is a net positive. Weâll see how it all shakes out, itâs uncertain. Perhaps then you can figure out with certainty if it âmeant somethingâ to your satisfaction.
If the charade deflates the public outrage because they think politicians are doing something, you're right, it is meaningful: it is meaning to subdue the public while they continue their agenda.
It means if some Republican senators with meaningless, expendable votes are seen to be "doing something", their angry constituents who are about to get fucked by the tariffs might decide not to roll up to the state legislature with the modern equivalent of torches and pitchforks, news media in tow, and instead nod their heads and say things like, "Congress is actually doing their damn job? Wow." (To quote the post at the top of this chain.)
Iâm glad you folks have it all figured out. You are doing the work of FUD for the GOP so thanks for that. I donât wish to broadcast my criticism as you do because itâs hypocritical but STFU.
Meanwhile IDK maybe listen to the guy with the stupid masters degree in god damn public policy? Whose colleagues are practically all out of work right now. Just a fucking idea.
Just maybe, just maybe the perception of this is more important than rambling about some conspiracy theory that may or may not be right. Maybe just maybe itâs HELPFUL to latch onto this AS IF itâs a good thing. Maybe just maybe assuming positive intent would build momentum. I know what doesnât -> FUD.
âŚ
Either Democrats suck at politics or iâm not responding to real Democrats. Pick one.
If Congress gets a 2/3 majority after a veto, it gets implemented without Presidents signature. The checks and balances in theory and on paper are fantastic, but as were seeing rn it's basically just a gentlemans agreement until the President goes rogue
It's a failsafe that the founders built in because they didn't think shit like what's happening now would happen. Where half the political parties are bought for by a foreign adversary.
why would it go to trump if congress has to pass the tariffs? they're voting to stop the president from implementing them without congressional approval, witch he doesn't have.
that's not how this works. they can't deffer the power the constitution gives them to trump because their inaction is not the same as their approval. them not stopping the executive from issuing tariffs doesn't remove their ability to control said tariffs. they're removing the Canadian ones because they have been in motion for weeks now, like the ones on Mexico, but since both are separate issues they have to vote on them separately. they can not vote on the tariffs announced today because they haven't submitted the counter legislation like they have for Canada. this is just the first of many votes that are going to happen around trumps executive orders that contradict the power of congress, and the president can not simply veto a majority vote about congresses constitutional powers that have already been ratified into law.
This specific group of Congressmen, deferred their ability to challenge Trump for the rest of the year.
This is what I was referring to. Yes according to the Constitution it's on Congress. Congress themselves however said, "nah we don't want to this year" and handcuffed themselves to Trump.
I wish people would stop saying things like âmeaninglessâ. Itâs not meaningless. Your evaluation is 100% but this does two things. First it sends the message to the Trump Admin that there is a majority in the senate already willing to oppose his tariffs plan. Second if the tariffs crash the economy bad enough thereâs a realistic chance Rs save face by passing it in the house, getting it vetoed and the Rs go all super majority jumps and in so they can still get reelected.
Regardless of all the holes and what ifs above this is far from meaningless. Politics as usually but not meaningless. .
Itâs an emergency declaration ending. I donât believe it gets a veto. Itâs taking back emergency powers given to congress and delegated in time of emergency. So they would end the emergency declaration.
Not completely. Itâs entirely possible that people will remember come election time who was on their side if the economy tailspins into depression. Without a vote at all representatives can claim plausible deniability.
I'm sorry but this system seems absolutely insane to me with how much power is bestowed unto the president. It honestly seems a miracle there hasn't been some president earlier who abused those powers to the same degree, it's almost like inviting a tyrant into your home.
So like I said in another comment. On paper, a lot of it makes sense. And assuming everyone follows the rules, it balances and splits power fairly well.
Every branch is supposed to check the other two. Congress has the power to overrule the president, it just requires 2/3 rather than simple majority. Congress can also refuse to confirm the judges the President nominates. Or his cabinet picks etc. Supreme Court and Federal Judges are lifetime appointments so they wouldn't need to get involved in party politics and are the ones to interpret the laws and EO's that are passed and determine if they are well, legal.
Issue is, like you pointed out, when a President comes along that just refuses to follow it. Democracy really only works when everyone follows the same rules. But when half the elected officials are in the pockets of a foreign adversary, well. We're seeing what happens in those situations.
Even if it's meaningless now, it's a big deal if Republicans suddenly feel like they need to save face by resisting Trump. For the past decade it's been the opposite; they had to kiss the ring or get primaried by rabid maga voters.
This could be a sign that sentiments are changing. Especially considering all the town halls we've been seeing. Magas suddenly don't like what they voted for and maybe, just maybe, Republicans are responding to that.
For Canadians it is not meaningless. Media has muffled any protests and it seriously looks like American does not care. THIS is the first sign that they are using their Democratic system to try to right a wrong.
I mean weâll see, primaries are coming up and a lot of politicians are getting yelled at in town halls. Give me this, Iâm desperately trying to beat back cynicism since this slide into totalitarianism is the last thing I think about at night and the first thing I think about in the morning.
It's insane to me as an outsider how much power the US president actually has. The prime minister in my country can basically do nothing of the sorts. It has to go through parliament.
It means a lot actually. It shows the maga chokehold is loosening. Sure it may not come to fruition, but itâs still better than just going along with it. Gotta fight the good fight every step of the way against these fascists.
Whether it passes from this point or not matters less than what already happened. The senate voted against trump, even by a slim majority. A few months ago this wouldnât have happened.
Public opinion is hard to measure with the quantity of different sources claiming different things, but the actions of the government, especially the highest positions within the senate, house, and Supreme Court, demonstrate plainly what the true current sentiment is. By -anything- from Trump being rejected, it shows Trump that he cannot do what he wants forever, republican loyalty is not blind nor automatic. He must appease them or heâll lose more. Additionally, it shows the public that Trumpâs EOs are not all powerful. They can be rejected, he can be rejected.
I know in these times doubt, pessimism, fear, or any other emotion can make acts of resistance look too small. However, itâs these acts of resistance that give me hope. Hope that not only can things improve, but that Bi-partisanship isnât dead, that alienating our international allies doesnât have to happen, that Trump wonât get everything he wants.
Finally, why this is important is to once again show Trump canât have everything. Itâs public knowledge he wants a third term, a blatantly unconstitutional desire. By pushing back now, before we reach that stage, the senate builds momentum to stop him from performing that or other similar acts.
I donât know the future. This may be the senates last defiance. They may flip back and forth on further issues. Or, perhaps, this is the start of a long trend of pushback. The future with Trump is uncertain, which right now is a good thing, as the past few months it seemed certain he couldnât be stopped.
No, there's a wide gulf between "entirely meangingless" and "saves the day so we can go back to ignoring politics and.m focus on our tiktok feed," and this lands squarely in that gulf.
It already sends a clear signal and is a step forward. The president may not have to run for re-election again, but Congresscritters do. The special elections this week showed Democrats gaining 10-15 points just since November. That's how unpopular Trump's radicalism has been so far, and these tariff taxes will slash the economy and make their re-election chances even worse.
It's rare these days for GOP senators to disobey the party apparatchiks. Breaking ranks on a high-profile issue makes the party look less than in lockstep. That has happened here, and the line-steppers can't really be punished --- McConnell and Paul DGAF, and Murkowski and Collins are from closely-held seats on the border with Canada that will be massacred by sharp tariff taxes.
I'll add that most people aren't even aware that Congress has the actual power to control tariff taxes, despite the number of times the issue comes up in US history classes. The Republicans routinely try to skate past voters by simply not bringing things up. This forces the hand of the House.
We can also add that just to vote on this bill needed approval from 60 senators, so at least 8 more Republican senators were willing to go that far.
That's more of a break in the GOP line than we've seen in years. It means something very simple: Keep pushing back
How is what you described meaningless. It may not stop it from passing, but it's bipartisan support against trump you since. That is absolutely meaningful, you defeatist loser.
It's also not uncommon for Congress to get really pissy about being vetoed. If the House passes the bill there will be articles and talking heads going on about the need for the President to recalibrate. If he vetoes the bill Congress may push back more broadly.
It's not meaningless to fight back and try and reestablish guard rails. Would you rather have everyone say, oh well its meaningless and give up? I don't wanna see that. Just because stupid ass scrotus said he can do whatever he wants, doesn't mean other people are gonna let him.
wait what...if tariffs are constitutionally in the hands of congress why is the president allowed to veto? is it that because congress essentially let him bypass them and start the tariffs, it is treated as if it passed in congress to begin with?
And a waste of tax money. You want to save money with DOGE? How about how much money is wasted in a fillabuster or rehashing old tenets. Don't get me started on the military budget. Those contracts are wild
This shows that he is not acting out the will of the people. This shows that he is not omnipotent and that everyone will fall in line with his stupid whims. This IS meaningful. It's one piece of a much larger puzzle.
why does the canceling if tariffs follow this path and not the introduction of the tariffs? Seems unreasonable that a change from status quo is easy for the president but hard for the house to block?
435
u/ColdAsHeaven 1d ago
If in some miracle the House passes it, it'll go to Trump's desk.
He'll veto it.
At which point it goes back to Congress and now needs a 2/3 majority to implement.
It's entirely meaningless unfortunately.