Super fun, watching our president reject every possible off-ramp with hostility only to later freak out and panic when there are no more off-ramps left. Fucking moron
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
228 points (99.6% liked)
politics
23209 readers
3748 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
did you know he often shits himselfs when he flys into a rage, the producers on his show later revealed how often he did it,
He's too much of a narcissist to take the off-ramps provided by other people. He has to come up with one himself so he can claim he's the expert dealmaker who saved us all.
That's not an off-ramp, it's a cliff.
Here is something I’ve been curious about. Congress has undisputed constitutional control of tariffs. A previous Congress enacted a law to delegate some of that authority to the President.
So now.. how can the President (or anyone) just say, “fuck you, you can’t have your constitutional power back?” Why can’t Congress just fall back to their constitutional authority and render their predecessors’ delegation invalid?
Congress does not have the constitutional authority to declare a prior Congresses laws invalid. For a bunch of internal stuff like the fillubuster rules, or remote voting, the current Congress can do whatever it wants without presidential review. However once a law is passed through the constitutional process, the constitution does not have a separate process for repealing it. This means that Congress would need to go through the same constitutional process to repeal it, which includes the possibility of a presidential veto.
Having said that, the Supreme Court does have the constitutional authority to declare a law invalid[0], and the President has no veto authority over that. Further, the current Supreme Court has invented out of nothingness two bedrock pillars of constitutional analysis:
-
The Major Questions Doctrine, which states that questions of major political or economic significance may not be delegated by Congress to the executive branch.
-
The Non-Delegation Doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate it's lawmaking authority to other entities.
Since the Supreme Court is an unbiased arbiter of the law, I'm confident that they will apply these principles consistently and determine that Congress's initial delegation if tarrif authority was unconditional. /s
[0] This is not actually explicit in the Constitution. But has been how it is interpreted since Marbury v Madison in 1803.
President can veto any bill. It will go back to Congress and needs (I think) 2/3 to override the veto
Correct. Requires ⅔ support in both chambers after a veto.
If he had 3 brain cells to rub together, he'd take this offramp and say "The tariffs were beautiful, and working perfectly, but the China-loving RINOs and Democrats killed them before we brought manufacturing back to our shores and eliminated income taxes."
And what's funny is MAGA would lap it up. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
Well, technically he can. Then Congress can just override it with two-thirds majority. Grow those spines — you got this.
So, if this is initially approved with a 2/3 majority can he still veto it and then they have to vote again? Or is there such a thing as a “veto-proof” initial passing?
They always need to vote again, sometimes a president veto will cause a bill to lose support and reps have an opportunity to change their vote.
Sometimes though presidents won't veto if it passes initially at that threshold, depending how embedded they are in their perspective.
Thank you for explaining. I feel like I’m becoming an armchair constitutional process hobbyist this year (against my natural inclinations). I appreciate you, and all the knowledgeable people who take the time to help educate.
That's a good way to turn the Senate against you
Orrr force them to continue doing nothing for forever as previously scheduled before public outrage. Now they can throw their hands up and act like they tried.
The Senate will decide your fate
I AM THE SENATE - Trump, 2025
"I am the senate."
Not yet... hey, where did the Jedi run off to?
Busy adjusting their stock portfolios.
If trump vetos (which we all know he would) can't the senate overturn his veto? Though I think a vote to overturn would require 2/3 majority
can I drive you
Supreme Court: He's got you there, come again next time you want to try and claw back congressional powers from a fascist
great. another way you put the tariff debacle on yourself.