So the crybaby Senators are just emphasizing their impotence on the matter. Maybe they should get their asses to work and pass a damn budget some day, let alone theCR.
"Four Republicans joined with all Democrats to vote 51-47 on a resolution to end the base-level tariffs that the president put into place via executive order.
(Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined the opposition party.)
Despite the opposition in the Senate, the House is unlikely to take any similar action. House Republicans created a rule earlier this year that will block resolutions on the tariffs from getting a floor vote."
Seems like pretty much a non-issue, except for perhaps to awaken the sheeple.
The U.S. Constitution's "Origination Clause" gives the House the power to originate all bills for raising revenue. Tariffs are revenue.
All government spending and revenue bills, also called appropriations bills, must originate in the House of Representatives before they can be signed into law.
While the House must start the process, the Senate can propose amendments to the bills and vote to pass the bill.
If a spending or taxation bill originates in the Senate, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The House doesn't even need to consider the bill, because it was illegal.
The JOINT RESOLUTION S. J. RES. 88 says in clear language, right in front:
"Terminating the national emergency declared to impose global tariffs".
So... it IS a revenue bill. It says so in the very first line right below the Joint Resolution heading. The whole clearly stated reason for terminating the 'state of emergency' is to remove tariffs... therefore affecting revenue. ILLEGAL. This is a revenue bill.
"ArtI.S7.C1.1.1 Origination Clause
Article I, Section 7, Clause 1:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
According to Cornell Law School:
"Insertion of this clause was another of the devices sanctioned by the Framers to preserve and enforce the separation of powers. It applies, in the context of the permissibility of Senate amendments to a House-passed bill, to all bills for collecting revenue—revenue decreasing as well as revenue increasing—rather than simply to just those bills that increase revenue. ; Moore v. U.S. House of Representatives, 733 F.2d 946 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 (1985).
Only bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word are comprehended by the phrase “all bills for raising revenue” ; bills for other purposes, which incidentally create revenue, are not included."
YES, THIS IS A BILL TO END A SOURCE OF REVENUE. The entire purpose of the "National Emergency" was to impose foreign trade tariffs. Tariffs and the income generated are not incidental, or a side product of the emergency declaration. It was the sole purpose of it. The Senate voted to pass a bill with the singular result of removing tariffs, decreasing revenue. Therefore, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
So the crybaby Senators are just emphasizing their impotence on the matter. Maybe they should get their asses to work and pass a damn budget some day, let alone theCR.
If the government shut down, what are these impotent losers doing voting on any bill other than funding the government?
Thanks for posting this! I keep learning so many things here on GAW!
So, this senate resolution does not have the force of a law right?
Way to show us the senate is powerless. Good goong schumer. How did they vote if its shut down?
Looks like Mebbe overseas money is driving the Senate?
Can't Trump just veto the damned bill? I'm getting really sick of Rand Paul. I was already sick of those two bitches Murcuntski and Collins.
Most of what these people do is theater for sound bites. This is ridiculous.
Too many Man-dates in the Senate.
I think they have to do it so the Supreme Court sees that they could do it as per the law but it won’t pass. That way the SC doesn’t fuck it up.
Paid off and retarded.
From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/30/senate-vote-trump-tariffs:
"Four Republicans joined with all Democrats to vote 51-47 on a resolution to end the base-level tariffs that the president put into place via executive order.
(Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined the opposition party.)
Despite the opposition in the Senate, the House is unlikely to take any similar action. House Republicans created a rule earlier this year that will block resolutions on the tariffs from getting a floor vote."
Seems like pretty much a non-issue, except for perhaps to awaken the sheeple.
Federal judge says: It's fine because the bill is for LOWERING revenue not raising revenue.
The U.S. Constitution's "Origination Clause" gives the House the power to originate all bills for raising revenue. Tariffs are revenue.
All government spending and revenue bills, also called appropriations bills, must originate in the House of Representatives before they can be signed into law.
While the House must start the process, the Senate can propose amendments to the bills and vote to pass the bill.
If a spending or taxation bill originates in the Senate, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The House doesn't even need to consider the bill, because it was illegal.
So… the executive branch can’t just arbitrarily raise tarrifs?
4 downvotes, 0 rebuttals
OP is mistaken. It's not a tax bill. It's a resolution to terminate the state of emergency, which is what allows the president to unilaterally change tariffs. Won't work anyway. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/88/text/is#:~:text=Introduced%20in%20Senate%20(10/07/2025)&text=Terminating%20the%20national%20emergency%20declared%20to%20impose%20global%20tariffs.,-IN%20THE%20SENATE
The JOINT RESOLUTION S. J. RES. 88 says in clear language, right in front:
"Terminating the national emergency declared to impose global tariffs".
So... it IS a revenue bill. It says so in the very first line right below the Joint Resolution heading. The whole clearly stated reason for terminating the 'state of emergency' is to remove tariffs... therefore affecting revenue. ILLEGAL. This is a revenue bill.
Check if I undertand correctly. You're saying that a bill to end a source of revenue is also a revenue bill?
"ArtI.S7.C1.1.1 Origination Clause Article I, Section 7, Clause 1:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
According to Cornell Law School:
"Insertion of this clause was another of the devices sanctioned by the Framers to preserve and enforce the separation of powers. It applies, in the context of the permissibility of Senate amendments to a House-passed bill, to all bills for collecting revenue—revenue decreasing as well as revenue increasing—rather than simply to just those bills that increase revenue. ; Moore v. U.S. House of Representatives, 733 F.2d 946 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 (1985).
Only bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word are comprehended by the phrase “all bills for raising revenue” ; bills for other purposes, which incidentally create revenue, are not included."
YES, THIS IS A BILL TO END A SOURCE OF REVENUE. The entire purpose of the "National Emergency" was to impose foreign trade tariffs. Tariffs and the income generated are not incidental, or a side product of the emergency declaration. It was the sole purpose of it. The Senate voted to pass a bill with the singular result of removing tariffs, decreasing revenue. Therefore, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I'm shocked. 😑 Sooo very tired of the uniparty.
We can all choose our own definitions, I guess.
well technically they wouldn’t be “raising” revenue, but lowering it…
the vote they took is legally out of their jurisdiction. only the House could vote on something like that.