Senate Votes To Repeal Canada Tariffs

[skews13.]

Four Republican senators helped Democrats pass a resolution Wednesday that would effectively repeal President Trump's tariffs on Canada.

Why it matters: The vote shows how deeply concerned some Republicans are about Trump's tariff policies, just as he rolls out even steeper tariffs on U.S. imports.

MSN

 

[craig]

This shows how a coalition in Congress can retake control of their constitutional prerogatives from the President.

 

[JoeB131]

This shows how a coalition in Congress can retake control of their constitutional prerogatives from the President.

It does?

Frankly, it shows how weak Congress has become. Assuming this nonsense ever passed the house, Trump could veto it.

 

[skews13.]

This shows how a coalition in Congress can retake control of their constitutional prerogatives from the President.

As we get closer to the '28 elections, I get the feeling that Republicans in Congress are going to have an epiphany about their Constitutional powers. Especially if it looks like a Democrat might win.

 

[Callen]

It won't make it to the floor in the House because it just might pass. The important thing is the Dems standing up for what is right and getting bipartisan support. The Dems must show they are willing and able to stand up and fight. That's what the voters are saying they want.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

It won't make it to the floor in the House because it just might pass. The important thing is the Dems standing up for what is right and getting bipartisan support. The Dems must show they are willing and able to stand up and fight. That's what the voters are saying they want.

Stand up and fight or march to the beat of Fascism. Should be good incentive and an easy decision for all patriotic non-MAGATS regardless of party.

 

[JoeB131]

As we get closer to the '28 elections, I get the feeling that Republicans in Congress are going to have an epiphany about their Constitutional powers. Especially if it looks like a Democrat might win.

Republicans didn't stand up to Trump when he sent an angry mob to kill them.

They could have put an end to Trump by voting for his second impeachment after that, but they didn't.

 

[BirdinHand]

It does?

Frankly, it shows how weak Congress has become. Assuming this nonsense ever passed the house, Trump could veto it.

And then it would go back and see if Congress had the votes to overcome the veto.



Let’s see if the MAGAs in the House can find a set of balls amongst them

 

[Callen]

They could have put an end to Trump by voting for his second impeachment after that, but they didn't.

Mitch McConnell should rot in hell for that!

 

[Old 'N Chill]

Republicans didn't stand up to Trump when he sent an angry mob to kill them.

They could have put an end to Trump by voting for his second impeachment after that, but they didn't.

A spine, patriotism and a little integrity would have helped them squeeze out that vote. But the party died in disgrace instead.

 

[Perotista]

Four Republican senators helped Democrats pass a resolution Wednesday that would effectively repeal President Trump's tariffs on Canada.

Why it matters: The vote shows how deeply concerned some Republicans are about Trump's tariff policies, just as he rolls out even steeper tariffs on U.S. imports.

MSN

Tariffs at one time was strictly a congressional power. But as in many cases over the years congress has ceded many of their constitutional powers to the administration or the executive branch. Three laws stand out give the administration or the president the power to impose tariffs basically as he sees fit without congressional action. The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

Although numerous presidents since these passages of the laws above having the power to impose tariffs at their will, none of them did. Free trade was the mantra especially from Reagan on until today, Trump. Perhaps the moral of this story is that congress ceding more and more of its powers to the executive branch, the president, different government agencies over decades have in reality made themselves less and less relevant as a check on the president and presidential powers. Congress has no one to blame but themselves. This, tariffs are but one example.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

And then it would go back and see if Congress had the votes to overcome the veto.



Let’s see if the MAGAs in the House can find a set of balls amongst them

They'll have to look to President Zelenskyy to find those, and like Wisconsin, they're not for sale.

 

[Mycroft]

Four Republican senators helped Democrats pass a resolution Wednesday that would effectively repeal President Trump's tariffs on Canada.

Why it matters: The vote shows how deeply concerned some Republicans are about Trump's tariff policies, just as he rolls out even steeper tariffs on U.S. imports.

MSN

All this does is show just how far the Senate GOP Elites will go...and how openly exposed they'll let themselves be...in order to protect the Globalists.

 

[skews13.]

Tariffs at one time was strictly a congressional power. But as in many cases over the years congress has ceded many of their constitutional powers to the administration or the executive branch. Three laws stand out give the administration or the president the power to impose tariffs basically as he sees fit without congressional action. The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

Although numerous presidents since these passages of the laws above having the power to impose tariffs at their will, none of them did. Free trade was the mantra especially from Reagan on until today, Trump. Perhaps the moral of this story is that congress ceding more and more of its powers to the executive branch, the president, different government agencies over decades have in reality made themselves less and less relevant as a check on the president and presidential powers. Congress has no one to blame but themselves. This, tariffs are but one example.

At one time, tariffs were how the country raised all of the revenue. It was a tax, as it is now on the poor and the working class.

Then the people got tired of watching the wealthy industrialists live like kings, while they suffered, with Senators having their backs, while getting wealthy themselves. ( Sound Familiar? ).

Then this happened....

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trump actually believes he has the popular support to repeal all of it. It's the ultimate goal of the Project 2025 delusion, that only exists in the minds of billionaires.

 

[Perotista]

Four Republican senators helped Democrats pass a resolution Wednesday that would effectively repeal President Trump's tariffs on Canada.

Why it matters: The vote shows how deeply concerned some Republicans are about Trump's tariff policies, just as he rolls out even steeper tariffs on U.S. imports.

MSN

Trump’s overall job performance is on a slow downward trend. Whether that equates to popularity or not?

1 Feb 49.4% approve/44.7% disapprove

1 Mar 48.7% approve/ 47.9% disapprove

1 Apr 47.7% approve/49.9% disapprove

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating

Perhaps how all Americans view Trump, positive/favorable or negative/unfavorable would have more to do with popularity than job approval/disapproval. That too is on a slow downward spiral.

1 Feb 48.9% favorable/47.7% unfavorable

1 Mar 47.1% favorable/48.9% unfavorable

1 Apr 46.2% favorable/50.0% unfavorable

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump

Although both Trump’s overall job approval and his favorable/unfavorable’s are better so far than at anytime during his first term.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179_test_v4.html

And if you like, you can compare Trump’s numbers to Biden’s

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/joe-biden/approval-rating

 

[Visbek]

Tariffs at one time was strictly a congressional power. But as in many cases over the years congress has ceded many of their constitutional powers to the administration or the executive branch.

Sorry, but in this case, you are not correct.

Trump has invoked emergency powers to levy these tariffs, specifically IEEPA. Yes, this is possible due to a law passed in 1977. However, the intent of the law was not to "cede all power over tariffs to the Executive." It was to give the President latitude to act in a genuine emergency, and it requires the presence of a "unusual and extraordinary threat."

Needless to say, normal trade with 180+ nations is not an "emergency."

This also makes these tariffs vulnerable to lawsuits. It's not clear, though, whether anyone has the ovaries to file suit.

This is not a result of Congress shirking its duty. It's a classic authoritarian maneuver -- the invocation and abuse of emergency powers.

 

[Perotista]

Sorry, but in this case, you are not correct.

Trump has invoked emergency powers to levy these tariffs, specifically IEEPA. Yes, this is possible due to a law passed in 1977. However, the intent of the law was not to "cede all power over tariffs to the Executive." It was to give the President latitude to act in a genuine emergency, and it requires the presence of a "unusual and extraordinary threat."

Needless to say, normal trade with 180+ nations is not an "emergency."

This also makes these tariffs vulnerable to lawsuits. It's not clear, though, whether anyone has the ovaries to file suit.

This is not a result of Congress shirking its duty. It's a classic authoritarian maneuver -- the invocation and abuse of emergency powers.

I did mention the 1977 law in my post, but your objection is noted.

 

[Cordelier]

Tariffs at one time was strictly a congressional power. But as in many cases over the years congress has ceded many of their constitutional powers to the administration or the executive branch. Three laws stand out give the administration or the president the power to impose tariffs basically as he sees fit without congressional action. The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

I don't think the problem originates with Congress so much as the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chandra (462 US 919) (1983) that struck down the constitutionality of the legislative veto. When Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA) in 1976, it included a legislative veto provision - Congress could override a Presidential emergency declaration with a majority vote of both chambers. After the Chandra decision, now it can only do so by passing a Joint Resolution subject to Presidential veto, so you need 2/3 of both chambers.

I know it's probably a pipe dream, but if I could get one Constitutional amendment ratified, it would be to enshrine the legislative veto in the Constitution.

 

[Luce]

Gotta get it past that muppet in the house, though.

 

[Perotista]

I don't think the problem originates with Congress so much as the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chandra (462 US 919) (1983) that struck down the constitutionality of the legislative veto. When Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA) in 1976, it included a legislative veto provision - Congress could override a Presidential emergency declaration with a majority vote of both chambers. After the Chandra decision, now it can only do so by passing a Joint Resolution subject to Presidential veto, so you need 2/3 of both chambers.

I know it's probably a pipe dream, but if I could get one Constitutional amendment ratified, it would be to enshrine the legislative veto in the Constitution.

I can see why the SCOTUS didn’t allow a legislative veto by a simple majority since the Constitution is explicit that it takes 2/3rds majority in both chambers. Article I section 2. A law won’t suffice, it would take a Constitutional amendment. These things have a tendency to backfire on the party originating them. Take the nuclear option, originated by democrats in the senate, they were the first to use it. But later on it was that nuclear option that allowed Trump to seat 3 very conservative justices on the SCOTUS which probably wouldn’t have happened without the use of the nuclear option or by simple majority instead of requiring 60 votes for cloture.

 

[rahl]

All this does is show just how far the Senate GOP Elites will go...and how openly exposed they'll let themselves be...in order to protect the Globalists.

We live in a global economy. Pretending we don’t, and pretending we can be isolationists, is why Trump and his supporters should be barred from all offices at every level of government.

 

[Cordelier]

I can see why the SCOTUS didn’t allow a legislative veto by a simple majority since the Constitution is explicit that it takes 2/3rds majority in both chambers. Article I section 2. A law won’t suffice, it would take a Constitutional amendment. These things have a tendency to backfire on the party originating them. Take the nuclear option, originated by democrats in the senate, they were the first to use it. But later on it was that nuclear option that allowed Trump to seat 3 very conservative justices on the SCOTUS which probably wouldn’t have happened without the use of the nuclear option or by simple majority instead of requiring 60 votes for cloture.

That's a Presidential veto, though. I don't see how there's anything within the Constitution prohibiting Congress from incorporating a legislative veto within legislation it deems necessary and proper. If the Congress has the power to grant the President emergency powers, it certainly should have the option of taking them away if he abuses them. Obviously, the Supreme Court disagreed in Chandra, but that wasn't a unanimous opinion. I think there's a lot of merit in Justice White's dissent in that case.

On the nuclear option, I was with Senator Levin - it was a mistake. It's also farcical. Essentially, it requires the Senate to decide that the rules don't actually say what they clearly say. I've got to much respect for the Senate to ever agree with that. It just makes it a joke.

 

[Cordelier]

Here's a link to Senator Levin's (D-MI) speech on the nuclear option:

Senate Proceedings, Nov. 21, 2013. See Pgs. S8421-23 for Levin's speech.

 

[Cordelier]

Here's that link again:

https://www.congress.gov/113/crec/2013/11/21/CREC-2013-11-21-pt1-PgS8418-2.pdf

 

[Perotista]

That's a Presidential veto, though. I don't see how there's anything within the Constitution prohibiting Congress from incorporating a legislative veto within legislation it deems necessary and proper. If the Congress has the power to grant the President emergency powers, it certainly should have the option of taking them away if he abuses them. Obviously, the Supreme Court disagreed in Chandra, but that wasn't a unanimous opinion. I think there's a lot of merit in Justice White's dissent in that case.

On the nuclear option, I was with Senator Levin - it was a mistake. It's also farcical. Essentially, it requires the Senate to decide that the rules don't actually say what they clearly say. I've got to much respect for the Senate to ever agree with that. It just makes it a joke.

Okay, to repeal any law to include the 1977 law all congress needs to do is pass legislation repealing it or any law. If the president signs it, then the 1977 law is repealed, no longer on the books. A simple majority is all that is needed unless there’s a filibuster in the senate which then would require 60 votes.

I don’t see how the SCOTUS could find congress repealing a previous passed law would be deemed unconstitutional. That’s not going to happen in this case because the republicans control both chambers.