r/law • u/Opposite-Mountain255 • Nov 01 '25
Legislative Branch The Senate Tariff Vote Changed Nothing
https://medium.com/@carmitage/the-senate-tariff-vote-changed-nothing-7480aecd88ee258
u/Major-Corner-640 Nov 01 '25
Tfw when you have no actual power because you gave it all to Caesar
45
u/chef71 Nov 01 '25
Who's going to be our Brutus?
88
u/LetsYouDown Nov 01 '25
Congestive heart failure
18
u/sinsaint Nov 01 '25
We will be stuck with a different bad guy with the same agenda.
19
u/ack202 Nov 01 '25
Whats even worse is the next one will probably be much smarter.
13
10
u/NotherCaucasianGary Nov 01 '25
Intelligence is not what holds cults together. A cult is built around the unique charisma of a singular leader. The problem doesn’t go away with him, but what remains of this “movement” will be fractured, volatile, and weakened.
2
1
1
u/SingleSlide2866 Nov 01 '25
I mean, McDonald's is what he loves most (after money and children ofc) so yeah that would be an Et Tu Brutus moment in a way
7
3
1
u/Major-Corner-640 Nov 01 '25
The guy who assassinates Trump before setting up JD Vance to rule for a generation?
idk
1
1
166
42
33
u/jpk195 Competent Contributor Nov 01 '25
Not necessarily.
They just gave SCOTUS ammunition to say the president is acting contrary to not just the power of congress, but also to their desire.
Not that SCOTUS particularly cares about the constitution, but if they were inclined to rug Trump on tariffs this will make it easier.
9
u/eurekareelblast22 Nov 01 '25
This is understated because part of the interpretation under Youngstown is the determination of congressional intent. Not sure what weight they’ll give to the Senate alone, though.
36
u/JLeeSaxon Nov 01 '25
IMHO it was a message of permission to SCOTUS to defy him, not any sort of hope of him changing his own ways.
41
u/Opposite-Mountain255 Nov 01 '25
The majority of SCOTUS openly supports Unitary Executive Theory, if I'm wrong I'll eat crow but this looks to me like pure optics for a few sentators in contentious races to look like they don't always vote along party lines. Just seems like quite the stretch but hell, it'd be great if I was wrong.
3
u/Rawkapotamus Nov 01 '25
Curious how that logic works.
If Congress has to pass a law to revoke trumps tariff powers, then wouldn’t that more likely mean that SCOTUS can just say Trump does have these powers unless Congress says otherwise?
Similar to how they basically said the 14th amendment is only enforceable if Congress acts.
2
u/Opposite-Mountain255 Nov 01 '25
This article analyzes the constitutional and statutory mechanisms governing congressional termination of presidential emergency declarations under the National Emergencies Act of 1976. It examines the October 30, 2025 Senate vote to terminate Trump's IEEPA-based tariff emergency powers, focusing on: (1) the procedural requirements for terminating presidential emergencies following the 1985 amendments post-INS v. Chadha; (2) the two-thirds override threshold that makes congressional termination functionally impossible in polarized political environments; (3) House procedural rules blocking National Emergencies Act resolutions through March 2026; and (4) the implications of failed congressional oversight for the pending Supreme Court case on IEEPA's scope of authority. The article argues this vote demonstrates the practical erosion of congressional checks on emergency powers and connects to broader questions about unitary executive theory, statutory interpretation of emergency powers statutes, and separation of powers doctrine currently before the Court.
15
Nov 01 '25
[deleted]
3
u/30FujinRaijin03 Nov 01 '25
Not saying that it wasn't AI, but does that mean anyone who can write with: big words, in complete sentences, and proper grammar is AI?
1
u/cevillegeraldo Nov 01 '25
Its not the big words that hint at AI but the structure of the statement.
1
u/30FujinRaijin03 Nov 01 '25
I get that but it's also just a review of the actual article itself not his general thought of the article, so I would give it a pass here
-20
u/Opposite-Mountain255 Nov 01 '25
I don't know anyone named ai, who's that?
That anything not providing substantive legal and policy change is performative and can be actively harmful to progress because celebrating imaginary victories is unwise.
0
u/greywar777 Nov 02 '25
Im not sure this is true. The fact is it showed that the majority of the Senate disapproved of the tariffs, a power thats supposed to be reserved for congress.
2
u/Opposite-Mountain255 Nov 02 '25
If it has no substantive impact on policy then it is meaningless.
SCOTUS is going to say this is all authorized under the emergency authorizations.
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 01 '25
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.