- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So Grassley wants congress to have tariff veto power. What worthless beings
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:57 am to 50_Tiger
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:57 am to 50_Tiger
grassley is 90+ years old. been in washington for probably 30+ years. someone should ask him why the trade deficit has reached a trillion dollars a year and he is just now talking about tariffs.
0
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:11 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
How dare Congress want to control taxation like the constitution says
The point being, WTF were they when Biden was destroying the country left and right
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:12 am to timdonaghyswhistle
quote:
When a Dem and Rep join hands like this, you better believe it.
Uniparty gonna uniparty
Posted on 4/4/25 at 11:37 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
How dare Congress want to control taxation like the constitution says
Tariffs are foreign policy which is the domain of the executive. Otherwise, the president would lose the tools to do his job. The president negotiates with foreign countries, not congress.
This would require any negotiation to be approved by congress, thus destroying the separation of powers. This is like thinking the president needs approval from a district judge to do his job.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 11:39 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Tariffs are foreign policy which is the domain of the executive. Otherwise, the president would lose the tools to do his job. The president negotiates with foreign countries, not congress.
This would require any negotiation to be approved by congress, thus destroying the separation of powers. This is like thinking the president needs approval from a district judge to do his job.
Good lord, you had to try to be this wrong.
This post was edited on 4/4/25 at 11:40 am
Posted on 4/4/25 at 11:41 am to Padme
He should focus on preventing insider trading and term limits first.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 11:41 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Tariffs are foreign policy which is the domain of the executive. Otherwise, the president would lose the tools to do his job. The president negotiates with foreign countries, not congress.
Then why did the initial government run by the people who wrote the Constitution feel it necessary to pass the Tariff Act of 1789?
*ETA: sponsored by James Madison. What would he know about the meaning of the Constitution, though.
This post was edited on 4/4/25 at 11:43 am
Posted on 4/4/25 at 11:43 am to SlowFlowPro
It’s easier than that. It’s in Article I:
quote:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; . . .
This post was edited on 4/4/25 at 11:44 am
Posted on 4/4/25 at 11:43 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Good lord, you had to try to be this wrong.
Comically wrong. The literal first piece of legislation after passing the Constitution was a Congressional act re: tariffs, sponsored by the author of the Constitution
Posted on 4/4/25 at 11:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
to support government, to protect manufacturing industries developing in the nation, and to raise revenue for the federal debt.
quote:
The act levied a 50¢ per ton duty on goods imported by foreign ships, a 30¢ per ton duty on American made ships owned by foreign entities, and a 6¢ per ton duty on American-owned vessels. [1]
LINK
Posted on 4/4/25 at 11:44 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
It’s easier than that. It’s in Article I:
muh Separation of Powers
Posted on 4/4/25 at 11:46 am to Padme
quote:of course..
Grassley wants congress to have tariff veto power
Congress and DC always wants to be criminal.
Just say no to Grassley - and his crooked cohorts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 11:47 am to Padme
These tariffs will be great leverage going forward to get these China first congressmen to vote for Trump policies.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 11:58 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
It’s easier than that. It’s in Article I:
The problem with this is Congress has to have a veto proof majority to block Trump’s tariffs and undo all the trade authority they have granted the executive branch over the years.
Congress never thought their abdication of their trade authority would be turned on its head like it has with Trump. Presidents were supposed to be controlled by the multinational corporations so the president could implement trade policy in their favor.
Oh well.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 12:10 pm to GumboPot
You’re not wrong. I’m interested to see how SCOTUS would treat such a broad, inter-branch delegation of core powers in a post-Chevron world.
But if the pain of the tariffs is too much for too long, there may be political will in Congress to reign in some of the prior grants to the executive.
But if the pain of the tariffs is too much for too long, there may be political will in Congress to reign in some of the prior grants to the executive.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 12:13 pm to Padme
How about making the tax cuts permanent?
Posted on 4/4/25 at 12:14 pm to Padme
It would be nice for Congress to do their jobs, but it's not gonna happen. They like being able to blame whoever is in the White House for their ineptitude.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 12:14 pm to Padme
Boomers are so worried about their little nest eggs they will sacrifice others to save themselves.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 12:16 pm to Padme
Normally tariffs require legislation. The vast expansion of executive power is the only thing that allowed the White House to produce tariffs under emergency powers. I’d prefer our legislature to be repaired from the useless morass it has become and to end the imperial executive model. Filibuster got to go, probably need to expand the house, and end gerrymandering.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News