Not a spine in the whole caucus
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 16:27 last edited by
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 16:31 last edited by
Insane
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 17:03 last edited by 89th 3 Nov 2025, 17:30
That is incredibly alarming.People do realize if this happens then Trump will have an UNCHECKED ability to take over domestic communications, seize Americans’ bank accounts, and deploy U.S. troops to any foreign country. These are but a few powers the President has during a declared national emergency.The whole POINT of declaring a national emergency is so that the President can act quickly on behalf of congress during unforeseen events where congress can not act fast enough, such as shutting down communication facilities or drawing equipment from national defense stockpiles.EDIT: (see below), I see this is limited to the 3 EOs Trump signed to assign duties (tax/tariffs), per the tweet.
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 17:07 last edited by
It wasn't really snuck in if this guy knows about it.
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 17:17 last edited by
BTW I was trying to find the exact text. Can't seem to find it (House resolution 211 or House Joint resolution 25). Will reply back if I can find the damn thing.
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 17:24 last edited by
Ok found it, you can click the PDF link to view the text: https://rules.house.gov/bill/119/hr-PIH-full-year-continuing-appropriations-and-extensions-act-2025
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 17:28 last edited by
I should note the Feb 1, 2025 date at the end I suppose limits it to these 3 national emergencies that Trump declared that day, basically imposing duties (aka import tax) on Mexico, China, and maybe Canada I haven't checked yet. This somewhat limits his power to those listed in the national emergency details, I think.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14193
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 17:31 last edited by
Term limits would go a long way.
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 18:52 last edited by
Don't get all of your politics off of X.
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 19:33 last edited by
It's literally in the bill. You can't blame X.
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 19:36 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Not a spine in the whole caucus:
You can't blame X.
Well, it’s Elon’s company after all.
-
wrote on 13 Mar 2025, 20:13 last edited by xenon
It’s working. Can’t call a vote on the tariffs:
Trump’s flying solo.
I remember when “pen and phone” was offensive.
-
wrote on 13 Mar 2025, 20:21 last edited by
Darn, would've been nice to document which representatives indeed were without a spine as their constituents and local businesses are crushed.
-
wrote on 13 Mar 2025, 20:27 last edited by jon-nyc
Maybe they can force an amendment on some other bill to get these spineless pussies on record.
-
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 00:06 last edited by
-
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 00:11 last edited by
I think it goes back to committee for revision?
-
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 00:21 last edited by
@taiwan_girl said in Not a spine in the whole caucus:
If the senators do not pass the spending bill, what happens to the original one from the representatives? Do that have to draft a new one? (That may or may not include the tariff language?)
I think others understand these sort of procedural things way better than me.
Then again Congress is explicitly just giving up their power to the executive, so who knows.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Not a spine in the whole caucus:
If the senators do not pass the spending bill, what happens to the original one from the representatives? Do that have to draft a new one? (That may or may not include the tariff language?)
I think others understand these sort of procedural things way better than me.
Then again Congress is explicitly just giving up their power to the executive, so who knows.
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 00:23 last edited by@xenon said in Not a spine in the whole caucus:
Then again Congress is explicitly just giving up their power to the executive, so who knows.
Chuck Schumer now says he will vote to keep the government funded precisely because he fears a government shutdown will cede even more power to Trump.
-
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 00:26 last edited by
This is really wild. Republicans in 2025 stand for isolationism, autarky, unions and large deficits. Imagine floating that at the end of the Obama years.
They have a consistent stance on gender though, I guess.
-
@xenon said in Not a spine in the whole caucus:
Then again Congress is explicitly just giving up their power to the executive, so who knows.
Chuck Schumer now says he will vote to keep the government funded precisely because he fears a government shutdown will cede even more power to Trump.
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 00:31 last edited by@Axtremus said in Not a spine in the whole caucus:
@xenon said in Not a spine in the whole caucus:
Then again Congress is explicitly just giving up their power to the executive, so who knows.
Chuck Schumer now says he will vote to keep the government funded precisely because he fears a government shutdown will cede even more power to Trump.
Chuck got his ass handed to him. Gillebrand could literally be heard screaming down the hallway, as the Dems were in their closed door meeting, wanting to know what the hell they were doing.
