@Gabe thanks for the fascinating and horrifying read. Not having heard of this particular House... methodology... before, it seems positively dystopian. Can you elaborate a bit: 1. is there any recourse here? Is the House just allowed to do this because the House gets to modify its rules however it wants, or could the Supreme Court rule that this is illegal? and 2. is this so common that we shouldn't be shocked, or is it (like it reads to me) a surprising case of democratic backsliding?
But it does not allow congress to redefine commonly used terms that are a part of previous legislation. Otherwise congress could just pass a rule changing the definition of terms used in the constitution, thereby amending it without due process.
This is excellent work. I would now direct your attention to Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the US Constitution: "The Privilege of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion of Invasion the public Safety may require it." This is why Trump has referred to the flow of immigrants across our southern border as an "invasion." Were you to write about his border policies in a way he did not favor, he could lock you up and suspend Habeas Corpus.
I recall reading the Federalist Papers and one of the arguments that the power of the executive branch would be contained was because the legislative branch had the power of the purse. Well, that seems to have been, like so many other powers, surrendered to the executive branch. Of course, we were warned about the power of factions, what today we call political parties. Thank-you for a very thought provoking article. (Goes well with my morning coffee.)
Very interesting. Could a member of the House (presumably a Dem) file a lawsuit claiming Section 4 of the rule resolution violates the temporal requirements of the National Emergencies Act?
No, statutory rules (like that part of the National Emergencies Act) have the same status as any other rule of the House or Senate, and the House or Senate have the constitutional right to modify them in the same way as any other rule.
With one slight of hand the House has surrendered its right... no obligation... to review the 'emergencies' that are hurting americans and may soon drive up prices and inflation and unemployment?
If so shame on the Democrats for not understanding the consequences!! Or ... Are they just waiting for the Republicans to wallow alone in the negative consequences of tariffs?!
Thank you for the explanation. I heard this on the news last night and was confused. You made it make sense. Are was totally hosed then???? Or can the senate stop this?
Well, interesting. I will read a while longer and then decide if upgrade to paid. I do appreciate you deciphering this wonky stuff that I was too bored to get into myself. Ha. I am not sure about permanent rules (but am sure they can be changed should they want to). So congress essentially agreeing with Trump for now doesn't bother me. I am not worried about Trump's tariffs. They are bargaining tools that are working for negotiating, and he adjusts when necessary. I'm fine with him having this power. Though I can imagine wanting to rein it in possibly. I kind of doubt they've handed permanent power to any and all presidents this way. So I'm not concerned. Tariffs will bring back our self-sufficiency and our economy over time. They all need us more than we need them. And there are national security and drug component issues at stake we can no longer tolerate. Maybe a bit of pain for a while, but will pay off for you younger folks.
In my more idealistic youth, I was a libertarian. Who cares who comes here. Just don't put them on the dole. Sort of a Reagan idea. I wasn't thinking about drug pushers, terrorists or human traffickers. Then I used to think, legalize drugs and prostitution. That will get rid of the black markets, clean it up, etc. Who cares what they do to their own bodies. Now liberals have nearly done that and we have homeless drug addicts defecating in our nice cities and hanging around clinics. And our cities resemble something worse than a boom town in the old west.
Long story short, I would have been against tariffs, too. But unless we want this country to become Europe, Trump is doing the right things here.
So, you are like Trump in that you believe tariffs can fix anything ? What is the purpose in using them against allies.
Trumps supposed “ bargaining” is doing really nothing but besieging Wall Street and causing uncertainty and anyone knows futures in wall street do not like unknowns……why not encourage incentives not to use overseas products, reduce the deficit and for once in his life shut the F up and quit with his mouthy petty sarcastic remarks about other allied leaders.
Problem is, Trump is bargaining his way into a recession. And, even more importantly, America’s irrelevance. The only thing to do with an unreliable trading partner is to not rely on it any more. The world will find a way to get along without the USA.
Ha. And we'll find a way to get along with them! The whole point. Companies will come back here and our economy will thrive. Just a bit of adjustment. They need US way more than we need them. The world will figure that out.
OK you experts, does this mean that Trump in his SCOTUS appeal on tariffs will now claim this non vote was de facto congressional authorisation of his power to tariff?
My understanding is the en banc ruling is that even if the emergency was accepted as validly declared - which they did not address, the tariff powers he used are well beyond the Presidents authority & his use of them was & is illegal.
Does the major questions doctrine also not defeat Trump, since if Congress has not been specific on its intent to grant him such broad & deep powers they will fall until such times as they do: which they won't bc that's the reason they ducked the vote on ieepa, bc it probably would not have passed then & it's even less likely now.
@Gabe thanks for the fascinating and horrifying read. Not having heard of this particular House... methodology... before, it seems positively dystopian. Can you elaborate a bit: 1. is there any recourse here? Is the House just allowed to do this because the House gets to modify its rules however it wants, or could the Supreme Court rule that this is illegal? and 2. is this so common that we shouldn't be shocked, or is it (like it reads to me) a surprising case of democratic backsliding?
Extremely unlikely SCOTUS would get involved. The constitution allows both chambers of congress to set (and interpret) their own rules.
But it does not allow congress to redefine commonly used terms that are a part of previous legislation. Otherwise congress could just pass a rule changing the definition of terms used in the constitution, thereby amending it without due process.
Of course it allows them to do that. The words mean what the rules say they mean.
The constitution isn’t congressional rules so your analogy fails.
Thank you for this explanation. Wish we could publish this for ALL to see....and understand!
I thought the same. What are the best ways for the public to see this?
I am posting it in a few other places because Gabe has done an amazing job here. Really sneaky.
Thank you Gabe! This was extremely enlightening.
Gabe,
This is excellent work. I would now direct your attention to Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the US Constitution: "The Privilege of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion of Invasion the public Safety may require it." This is why Trump has referred to the flow of immigrants across our southern border as an "invasion." Were you to write about his border policies in a way he did not favor, he could lock you up and suspend Habeas Corpus.
I recall reading the Federalist Papers and one of the arguments that the power of the executive branch would be contained was because the legislative branch had the power of the purse. Well, that seems to have been, like so many other powers, surrendered to the executive branch. Of course, we were warned about the power of factions, what today we call political parties. Thank-you for a very thought provoking article. (Goes well with my morning coffee.)
Very interesting. Could a member of the House (presumably a Dem) file a lawsuit claiming Section 4 of the rule resolution violates the temporal requirements of the National Emergencies Act?
No, statutory rules (like that part of the National Emergencies Act) have the same status as any other rule of the House or Senate, and the House or Senate have the constitutional right to modify them in the same way as any other rule.
Fascinating yes, but it says only one thing to me. Republicans are cowards; nothing more, nothing less
Great analysis that I don't think I would find this in any mainstream media.... because it would take too long for them to unwrap!
So is that it??
With one slight of hand the House has surrendered its right... no obligation... to review the 'emergencies' that are hurting americans and may soon drive up prices and inflation and unemployment?
If so shame on the Democrats for not understanding the consequences!! Or ... Are they just waiting for the Republicans to wallow alone in the negative consequences of tariffs?!
Thank you for the explanation. I heard this on the news last night and was confused. You made it make sense. Are was totally hosed then???? Or can the senate stop this?
Wow really great work. Fascinating and the first I heard of this getting snuck into the CR.
This is why I say we still have three branches of Government: The Judicial. The Executive. And the *Administrative* Not the *Legislative*
We are a Nation governed by Managers and not by The Electors. There are more Executive Branch agencies than members of Congress.
If they cannot deal with repealing DST, then they are unable to deal with the reality of a "day."
I am grateful for your explanation, in a way I could - almost - understand it. Keep up your good work.
Excellent update, Gabe
Well, interesting. I will read a while longer and then decide if upgrade to paid. I do appreciate you deciphering this wonky stuff that I was too bored to get into myself. Ha. I am not sure about permanent rules (but am sure they can be changed should they want to). So congress essentially agreeing with Trump for now doesn't bother me. I am not worried about Trump's tariffs. They are bargaining tools that are working for negotiating, and he adjusts when necessary. I'm fine with him having this power. Though I can imagine wanting to rein it in possibly. I kind of doubt they've handed permanent power to any and all presidents this way. So I'm not concerned. Tariffs will bring back our self-sufficiency and our economy over time. They all need us more than we need them. And there are national security and drug component issues at stake we can no longer tolerate. Maybe a bit of pain for a while, but will pay off for you younger folks.
In my more idealistic youth, I was a libertarian. Who cares who comes here. Just don't put them on the dole. Sort of a Reagan idea. I wasn't thinking about drug pushers, terrorists or human traffickers. Then I used to think, legalize drugs and prostitution. That will get rid of the black markets, clean it up, etc. Who cares what they do to their own bodies. Now liberals have nearly done that and we have homeless drug addicts defecating in our nice cities and hanging around clinics. And our cities resemble something worse than a boom town in the old west.
Long story short, I would have been against tariffs, too. But unless we want this country to become Europe, Trump is doing the right things here.
So, you are like Trump in that you believe tariffs can fix anything ? What is the purpose in using them against allies.
Trumps supposed “ bargaining” is doing really nothing but besieging Wall Street and causing uncertainty and anyone knows futures in wall street do not like unknowns……why not encourage incentives not to use overseas products, reduce the deficit and for once in his life shut the F up and quit with his mouthy petty sarcastic remarks about other allied leaders.
Problem is, Trump is bargaining his way into a recession. And, even more importantly, America’s irrelevance. The only thing to do with an unreliable trading partner is to not rely on it any more. The world will find a way to get along without the USA.
Ha. And we'll find a way to get along with them! The whole point. Companies will come back here and our economy will thrive. Just a bit of adjustment. They need US way more than we need them. The world will figure that out.
OK you experts, does this mean that Trump in his SCOTUS appeal on tariffs will now claim this non vote was de facto congressional authorisation of his power to tariff?
My understanding is the en banc ruling is that even if the emergency was accepted as validly declared - which they did not address, the tariff powers he used are well beyond the Presidents authority & his use of them was & is illegal.
Does the major questions doctrine also not defeat Trump, since if Congress has not been specific on its intent to grant him such broad & deep powers they will fall until such times as they do: which they won't bc that's the reason they ducked the vote on ieepa, bc it probably would not have passed then & it's even less likely now.