If it passes the House, it doesn't matter, Trump can veto it.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha in 1983 declared Legislative Veto unconstitutional. It should have been then when all the emergency powers were rewritten.
So as it stands. All those emergency powers that were written with the understanding that a simple majority was all that was needed to end an emergency, now need a veto proof majority.
President Trump will impose a 10% tariff on all countries
It's just whatever at this point. Clearly he's gunning for recession, fuck it. Nobody in Congress stopping him.
At this point all those emergency powers Congress has given the President since the 1920s needs to be pulled back because clearly we can no long assure that the President won't declare everything an emergency.
Schedule F classification. Trump tried it once towards the end of his first term, promised that he would do it again when he came back into office but Trump lost that election.
That he's now doing again is literally no surprise. He absolutely promised that this would happen and spoke about how he was going to do it if he won 2024 after losing 2020.
Long story short, this creates what basically amounts to at-will employment at the Federal level. Again, this should come as a shock to no one, like he started detailing the implementation back in 2022, before he even got the nomination, it's literally one of the most consistent things about Trump's policy.
Now if you're wondering, yes, at-will employment styled employment in Federal Office will mean that if Trump doesn't like someone for any reason, they can be let go, zero employment protections.
Elon Musk is neither President or Vice President, yet yields a massive amount of power for someone who is just "an independent contractor".
This is what I'm getting at. That a JD Vance President and Mike Johnson VP (let's just say for sake of illustration) could indicate they're bringing Trump on as a "consultant" and then leave their jobs largely up to him.
Technically speaking Vance would still hold the title President but Trump would be executing most of the functions.
Yeah. Then Putin took back the role of President using the argument that Medvedev being President allowed Putin to run again despite term limits.
Medvedev became Prime Minister, then everyone in Parliament resigned all at the exact same time, leaving the President as the only one running the place.
Putin rewrote the Constitution and that was the end of that.
NBC News asked about a possible scenario in which Vice President JD Vance would run for office and then pass the role to Trump. Trump responded that “that’s one” method.
That isn't a method. At in the sense that Trump obtains the title President. But we've seen during this administration that the President can delegate broad authority to others with zero questions.
So we could have a President who is still the President in name but has passed 99.9% of their duties to Trump who is an "independent contractor".
This is quite literally the foundation they're building with Musk.
Kids aren't going to work these stupid ass jobs. And if they are working a hotel, they aren't going to give a fuck if some stick up their ass tourist gets upset, they'll just flip the person off and walk out.
Teenagers aren't going to fucking fill these positions DeSantis is pitching. Migrants work it because they've got a need to do the work. A lot of teenagers work jobs because they'd like a little extra cash, but outside, they give flying fuck. Hell, the biggest fucking reason teens got jobs in the first place to fund their car is falling apart as more teens just skip the whole driving thing or start way later in life driving.
DeSantis is living in some yesteryear daydream.
cut waste and fraud
If at any point she actually believed Trump was going to do that, then mission accomplished. Her energy to empower Trump was wasted and she is only a fraud to herself.
I have very little in any expectation that she will learn from this. She will absolutely believe the next con man and lose again. That whole
I’m not sure that I would have [voted for Trump], and the way that it’s been done... I’m for balancing the budget, that type of thing, but not, not in this context, it’s just not right
Is just so devoid of any rational thought that I find it difficult to believe this person is real. And if what she says is indeed the fact, she's too blind, lacking a better appreciation of how government works, or some mixture of both that one could likely bank on her falling for this exact same con several more times in her life.
There's just no way anyone could have listened to Trump in the run up and bought so blindly what he was pitching. Just a simple basic understanding of the notion that humans lie is enough to have seen past Trump. Truly if this whole story is true, there's not a stopping this lady from more self flagellation. She is in a position that being a rational thinking person would not get themselves into, so there is no rational means to help her escape her level of desire to cause self harm.
The President doesn't have authority over Courts like that.
Congress regulate the scope of the Courts per Article III Section 1 of the Constitution. However, the Courts have the ability to rule any law unconstitutional that changes their authority too much.
Congress cannot get rid of the supreme court. It must always exist. But they can reduce the size to a single judge.
Hypothetically speaking, Congress can change the Justice system to be a single court with a single judge. Now they can reduce the size, but they can only impeach judges out of their job. So if they reduced the size to a single judge, they would have to wait until all the other justices died off or impeach the eight they want to get rid of.
The President only has the power to appoint Judges. And also Executive Orders only apply to the Executive. So EOs don't apply to Congress or the Judicial.
All that said, nothing stops the President from arresting Judges and throwing them in jail until the President gets his way. No President does that because that would likely lead to a very bad place for the US.
Of course that only applies to Presidents who give two shits about the country. So to answer your question, normally no. With Trump? I mean it wouldn't surprise me if he started disappearing judges he didn't like.
Congress has the power to nullify any and all tariffs with a two-thirds vote in each chamber.
Congress can then start rescinding those emergency powers acts that let Trump do this if he declares an emergency. Likely that'll need two-thirds vote as well.
Congress used to have Legislative Veto until it was ruled unconstitutional back in the 80s. Those emergency powers should have been reformed then.
Idiot. You literally voted to give the President the ability to call sequestration. It's right there in section 1113 of the fucking continuing resolution YOU voted for.
Schumer literally voted for this to happen and is now shocked that it is indeed happening. Goddamn, dude. Everyone told you to not give into the orange shit, you gave in anyway.
Literally this is peak FAFO. What a fucking idiot. THIS is why Democrats are losing.
You're mostly right in that the person you're replying is missing that we are providing money for those people's detention. But El Salvador doesn't HAVE TO give the person back, there's nothing outside of us stopping payments that compels them.
It's a semantic difference indeed but goes to point out the difference between legal means and diplomatic means. Legally, there's nothing the US can do, once the person is in El Salvador they are under that country's legal system. Diplomatically, yes, absolutely we can ask El Salvador to hand the person back or there will be diplomatic and potentially economic consequences for not doing so.
Now as others have pointed out, the Executive branch has a wide latitude for diplomatic powers. Judge indicated that the President work diplomatically to bring the person home, but outside of that, the "or else" part. There's not much the Judge can do past that.
Additionally, El Salvador could press charges on the person and then there would be nothing that can be done to bring the person home in any legal means and likely less so diplomatically. This is the issue with sending people there. President Bukele of El Salvador could wish for better diplomatic relationships with the United States and Trump and just invent charges to keep the person there forever. There's literally nothing we can do is El Salvador indicates that they are keeping the person and there's nothing in the court system that can compel anyone to make those reasons clear.
That's the biggest thing about the difference between diplomatic and legal. In legal means, the Court system can ensure that people are following through on requirements. In a diplomatic means, it's just depends on who can butter who's biscuit the best. The Judge can tell the President to bring him back, but that means next to nothing when it comes to diplomatic matters.