r/politics • u/throwaway16830261 • 1d ago

Terminate the Trump tariffs before it's too late

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-rand-paul-terminate-trump-tariffs-before-its-too-late
5.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

605 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

621

u/IJustLoggedInToSay- Illinois 1d ago

Fun fact: The Continuing Resolution to fund the government for the next year wasn't just extraordinary because CRs are usually for a couple months not an entire year, but also because it contained a provision prohibiting the House from challenging Trump's emergency trade wars powers for the duration.

Again: The House or Representatives preemptively castrated their own ability to cancel Trump's emergency powers for an entire year.

But at least they avoided a government shutdown, which I'm sure will help me sleep at night while my cost of living goes up by 15% and my salary doesn't.

322

u/THSSFC America 1d ago

I mean this ties the GOP even tighter to this economic catastrophe.

However, THEY CAN STILL STOP THIS, TODAY!

They just need a vote, ALL Demcrats would be on board. They could easily get a veto-proof majority with 0 pushback from the Democrats.

Every day they don't do this is one more day they are complicit in this catastrophe.

95

u/Elimrawne 1d ago

You can't tie people to something if they just deny it, run ads saying you actually did it and then create another catastrophe.

20

u/trisul-108 1d ago

This would only be done by Republicans who are on the ballot in 2026 and Trump would primary against them with Musk funds.

56

u/DazzlingAdvantage600 1d ago

Wisconsin has just shown that Musk is not a fallback for any Republican candidate, especially in blue/purple areas. WI Dems thought they were only up by 1-2 points; in fact, it turned out to be 9 points.

28

u/angrybirdseller 1d ago

There are Republican politicians in Iowa to Minnesota very nervous about Wisconsin result. Wisconsin bellwether of Midwest.

8

u/LalaPropofol 1d ago

They’re nervous in Michigan too. Trump barely won here, and we enjoyed four years of Democrats holding the senate, house, and governorship. Objectively, our blue leadership got a fuck ton done.

Republicans have the house by a very slight majority right now. They’re currently trying to challenge the CITIZEN PROPOSAL that passed for redistricting reviewed by the federal Supreme Court.

They’re terrified, and they should be. Voters will feel physically ill hearing “conservative” after these tariffs topple the automotive industry.

1

u/angrybirdseller 1d ago

The frost belt gets hammered hard by tariffs as automotive, tools, and machinery to build become more expensive.

The rural towns get hit harder as manufacturing jobs are regionalized, and Canadian customers may more than from Texas. Trump is idiot, but the tariffs are being used to extort business.

1

u/OkFigaroo Washington 1d ago

If there is really a +8 point environment for Democrats, you could add Alaska, Florida, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas (by Cook Partisan Index) to that list. Strong candidates could even pull higher.

While it wouldn’t be enough not convict him, a senate and house majority would be enough to impeach and bar Trump from ever holding office again.

What happens next would be anyone’s guess.

0

u/GaimeGuy Minnesota 1d ago

They should be nervous about the end of the United States

25

u/JustMy2Centences Indiana 1d ago

If my Republican congressman went against Trump to uphold some sense of dignity and protect the constitution, I'd vote for them keep their seat in the primary. General election is fair game as always.

But they won't, and they don't care about us.

1

u/TallyHo17 1d ago

This is the way right here.

That's what we need to tell them all and scream it from the rooftops.

1

u/trisul-108 1d ago

Maybe. But the MAGA majority in the party would more probably choose what Trump asks for. At least that's what's been happening and candidates know it.

9

u/gusterfell 1d ago

The entire House is on the ballot.

14

u/StoppableHulk 1d ago

Musk's not gonna have any funds by the time 2026 rolls around. And besides, he spent $25 million to elect a fucking judge in Wisconsin and failed, anyone who is afraid of that fucking loser at this point needs their heads examined.

14

u/seats-taken- 1d ago

You think hes gonna burn through 380 billion dollars this year? Not trying to sound like a total dick, but since the only backing to your argument is that he spent 25 million in Wisconsin, Id recommend looking up "the difference between million and billion explained with grains of rice". This dude could piss 25 million a day for the rest of the year and it wouldnt even be 7 billion dollars, and we re not including any and all growth that occurs to his net worth during that year. Tldr, Elon aint gonna be forced to eat kraft dinner anytime soon.

5

u/Responsible_Pizza945 1d ago

He doesn't have that much in liquid money. Most of his wealth is in the form of stocks, which are all rapidly tanking. He claimed those stocks as collateral to justify massive bank loans with low interest rates. It's a convenient loophole for someone rich enough to pull it off, since it leaves your stock portfolio to appreciate while still allowing you access to money you otherwise wouldn't have. But it only works while the stock you hold is worth more than the toilet paper it's becoming.

2

u/littlerelaxation 1d ago

The difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars is about a billion dollars

3

u/StoppableHulk 1d ago

He doesn't have 380 billion dollars.

2

u/SublimeApathy 1d ago

You assume they want to. Everything you see about GOP members saying "this is absurd", "I'm against this,", "We will get slaughtered in midterms" is all performative in my opinion. They don't want their constituents (who are armed to the teeth) showing up at their homes.

1

u/THSSFC America 1d ago

I don't assume anything. I am accurately indicating who is to blame for this disaster.

If the GOP doesn't want to own Great Depression 2.0, they need to act.

1

u/SublimeApathy 1d ago

And what I’m saying is they don’t care because GD 2.0 is the goal.

1

u/DazzlingAdvantage600 1d ago

They need a discharge position signed by at least 218 members. Also, 16 republicans are in seats they won by margins of less than 16%. Could make for an interesting election cycle, should we get there…

1

u/Runnerakaliz 1d ago

Seriously remove the goddamn president. Article 24 his ass. What they scared of a couple of inbred people who can't even spell tariffs?

1

u/THSSFC America 1d ago

That's something the cabinet must do, but they are all hand-picked to be his toadies. They'll ride this one to the bottom.

1

u/Round_Mastodon8660 1d ago

Except Chuck Schumer

1

u/siromega37 1d ago

They’ll never get a veto-proof majority in the House. They’re on a continuous re-election campaign and they’re not willing to give up their seats so the right thing.

1

u/THSSFC America 21h ago

I think you misunderstand my point. And that is that this is wholly in the GOPs lap. The Dems would be thrilled to vote away Trump's (abused) tariff power. So the only thing keeping that from a reality is GOP congressmen.

They OWN this catastrophe.

1

u/siromega37 13h ago

I mean they’re not really GOP congressmen—they’re part of the MAGA party. Would be great to see the GOP make a return or at least standup to MAGA. Wouldn’t be the first time the conservative or liberal parties had a schism that formed a new party.

-6

u/OldCardiologist8437 1d ago

You’re not paying attention if you think all democrats would be on board.

1

u/THSSFC America 1d ago

Who wouldn't be on board?

Enough to matter?

1

u/OldCardiologist8437 1d ago

What about the ten democrats who literally just voted to let it pass?

3

u/THSSFC America 1d ago

The CR? That's one of those poison pill amendments that was shoved in and at that time Crazypants McGee hadn't tariffed every world economy including penguin-based ones yet.

There is ample rationalization room to understand why some may have felt that was a good tradeoff to not crash the economy by shutting down the government. Naive, in retrospect, sure, but understandable.

This time the political calculus is FAR different.

2

u/OldCardiologist8437 1d ago

You can make all the justifications you wanted, but to ever say all the democrats would on board with anything is just naive as they’ve spent their entire history shooting themselves in the feet. Saying “but this time it’s FAR different” is just burying your head in the sand. Trump is who Trump is and the democrat leaders are who they are. For some reason everyone expects them to suddenly change.

This is just one of many crossed lines too far that will soon be in the rear view.

1

u/THSSFC America 1d ago

I can be as cynical as the rest, but I just don't see an angle where a Democrat (bar, maybe Fetterman) would have anything to gain from a nay vote here. There are tons of votes where the D's vote en banc, the ones where they split often are over issues where ones in red-leaning districts need to have a conservative vote in their bonafides or some other concession. But there isn't a constituency for economic ruin. Sure, there may be a vulture capitalist here and there who could benefit from shorting the USA, but there isn't enough of them to make an electoral bloc that would sway a D congressman away from taking the ball away from Trump and whacking him on the nose with a rolled-up newpsaper.

0

u/OldCardiologist8437 1d ago

“But there isn’t a constituency for economic ruin.”

Your base assumptions are wrong because you can’t imagine a stance you wouldn’t take yourself. There is power in burning a country down and there is power is getting to be in charge of rebuilding on the rubble. If the democrat leaders cared about the things you want them to care about, we wouldn’t be here to begin with. The feckless fossils in charge only care about retaining the power they have for as long as they can cling on to life. It’s been 9 years of This Time It’s Too Far until the next week when something worse happens and then it’s Now This Time It’s Really Really Too Far. They’ll clutch their pearls and bend over again because in the end they’ll be fine and the worse things get the better their reelection chances are.

1

u/THSSFC America 1d ago

Your base assumptions are wrong because you can’t imagine a stance you wouldn’t take yourself.

You misunderstand me, then.

The feckless fossils in charge only care about retaining the power they have for as long as they can cling on to life.

That's why I mentioned constituency.

They'd be signing their electoral death warrants to go against the flow here.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/abritinthebay 1d ago

They probably voted because they were worried about all the shit Trump could legally do in a government shutdown.

They were not wrong, as such. It’s just shit choices all round

69

u/os_kaiserwilhelm New York 1d ago

Minor nitpick, they didn't prohibit themselves from challenging the tariffs, which they can do at any time.

They stopped the clock on when Congress has to affirmatively assent, or else the tariffs expire (I think). They basically made it so that Trump's tariffs are permanent for the duration of the continuing resolution unless 2/3 of Congress can pass a law removing tariffs and overriding the Presidential veto.

Not a huge distinction, but Congress is not prohibited from challenging Trump's tariffs. As a general rule, Congress cannot bind Congress.

1

u/INDIEfatigable 20h ago

That's not a minor nitpick. As you point out, Congress merely bought itself more time to end Trump's initial tariffs. That's very different from Congress waiving its ability to end the tariffs (which Congress did not do, despite what the OP might think).

0

u/User-no-relation 1d ago

I can't find anything that says they did anything like what you are saying here

6

u/os_kaiserwilhelm New York 1d ago

Attempt #2 because the mods want to make this site as unfriendly as possible.

Alright, I'm home and at a desktop so I can give proper sources.

Section 4 of H. RES. 211

SEC. 4. Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the 12 President on February 1, 2025.

Subsection c(1) of 50 U.S. Code § 1622 states:

(1)A joint resolution to terminate a national emergency declared by the President shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be. One such joint resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

This is after a 6-month period from the initiation of the order. So, Trump declared a national emergence on February 1, 2025 that allowed him to levy tariffs. After 6 months, Congress must consider a resolution to terminate the emergency (note: it does not have to terminate the emergency). The continuing resolution made it such that Congress must consider ending the emergency, the 15 calendar day window never expires. Also, Congress is more or less always in session.

All of this being said, I'm not entirely convinced that 50 U.S.C. 1622 is valid law. Congress cannot bind Congress. The act itself is unenforceable. There is no penalty for not doing what the act states, and how could something like this even be litigated. Can Congress be sued? Can the Courts compel Congress to comply with the law?

The only way this would be effective is if the emergency automatically expired and Congress had to power to renew it. In fact, this joint resolution has to be signed into law, meaning Congress would still need to override the veto. This law is effectively meaningless now that I read it.

So to the original comment, I'm not sure the language in the continuing resolution actually does anything except for pre-empting the "necessity" that Congress take up the matter. Even if Congress took up the matter, all the same hurdles exist that would exist for normal legislation. The law more or less just gives the matter privileged status, and all the continuing resolution seems to be doing is delaying that privilege.

36

u/me_jayne 1d ago edited 1d ago

They changed the definition of a “day”. It doesn’t get any more reality-bending.

14

u/doublecalhoun 1d ago

except everywhere else the word 'day' is used in legislation, except that one part where they want 'day' to mean anything they wish

we are extra fucked

6

u/code_archeologist Georgia 1d ago

Again: The House or Representatives preemptively castrated their own ability to cancel Trump's emergency powers for an entire year.

Which is one of the reasons that there is a nullification crisis on the horizon. California, Illinois, and New York are currently looking at ways to circumvent our just straight up ignore Trump's tariffs because they are unconstitutional.

3

u/temp4adhd 1d ago

Feds don't follow the Constitution, why should the states, and why should any of us?

Is this the fuck around find out stage?

10

u/bishpa Washington 1d ago

And your savings evaporate.

10

u/Xanikk999 1d ago

Schumer needs to go now. He is a disgrace.

1

u/Abject_Challenge2932 22h ago

Schumer and those other 9 Dems that pushed the continuance through. He could not do it alone.

4

u/jgilla2012 California 1d ago

Ha ha, you’re assuming you’ll still have a job to earn 15% less at! Many will not make it to that point. 

2

u/unhandyandy 1d ago

Can you give a source for this?

2

u/RedditMapz 1d ago

Schumer may have stumbled into a 5D chess move by accident by letting the CR get through.

2

u/Euler007 1d ago

They worry more about a primary than the country.

2

u/FvckRedditAllDay 1d ago

That’s assuming you even still have a job - heads are rolling everywhere I look these days - and the actual,bloodletting hasn’t even started yet - damn I’m so tired of winning

2

u/fertthrowaway 1d ago

Can you link the wording of this provision? Weird thing to have in a budget continuing resolution...

2

u/pilgermann 1d ago

Yep. That said, I'm confident they could in fact override that. More to the point we're in a power struggle. If the Republican base falls out it's over for the tariffs.

2

u/Makenshine 1d ago

15%? It's rare to see this kind of optimism on the internet 

2

u/amsync 20h ago

F-ing Schumer

2

u/HardestGamer 1d ago

Fuck Chuck Schumer.

1

u/ForMoreYears Canada 1d ago

That's what the sneaky language about changing some definition to something different until 2026, right?

1

u/User-no-relation 1d ago

You can't pass a law that you can't pass any more laws. Doesn't work like that. If they pass a new law it can change it.

1

u/poet0463 1d ago

Afraid it’s going to be way more than 15%

1

u/os_kaiserwilhelm New York 1d ago

Attempt #2 because the mods want to make this site as unfriendly as possible.

Alright, I'm home and at a desktop so I can give proper sources.

Section 4 of H. RES. 211

SEC. 4. Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the 12 President on February 1, 2025.

Subsection c(1) of 50 U.S. Code § 1622 states:

(1)A joint resolution to terminate a national emergency declared by the President shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be. One such joint resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

This is after a 6-month period from the initiation of the order. So, Trump declared a national emergence on February 1, 2025 that allowed him to levy tariffs. After 6 months, Congress must consider a resolution to terminate the emergency (note: it does not have to terminate the emergency). The continuing resolution made it such that Congress must consider ending the emergency, the 15 calendar day window never expires. Also, Congress is more or less always in session.

All of this being said, I'm not entirely convinced that 50 U.S.C. 1622 is valid law. Congress cannot bind Congress. The act itself is unenforceable. There is no penalty for not doing what the act states, and how could something like this even be litigated. Can Congress be sued? Can the Courts compel Congress to comply with the law?

The only way this would be effective is if the emergency automatically expired and Congress had to power to renew it. In fact, this joint resolution has to be signed into law, meaning Congress would still need to override the veto. This law is effectively meaningless now that I read it.

So to the original comment, I'm not sure the language in the continuing resolution actually does anything except for pre-empting the "necessity" that Congress take up the matter. Even if Congress took up the matter, all the same hurdles exist that would exist for normal legislation. The law more or less just gives the matter privileged status, and all the continuing resolution seems to be doing is delaying that privilege.

1

u/henrywe3 1d ago

Isn't there a Federal law on the books already that supercedes this provision of the CR to let Congress void out the National Emergency

1

u/PeterDTown 1d ago

Good luck at keeping it to just 15%

1

u/GotenRocko Rhode Island 1d ago

They can just vote to remove that though.

1

u/Round_Mastodon8660 1d ago

Chuck Schumer is a traitor

1

u/-Captain-Planet- 22h ago

I don’t think this would hold up in court even with the current SCOTUS. Congress can override any existing bill with a new bill unless it is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. In this case, the Constitution delegates the authority to impose import duties (tariffs) expressly to Congress.

0

u/RockmanMike 1d ago

But Chuck Schumer will write a sternly-worded tweet saying how bad things are and do nothing about it. 🤦🏻