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.
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…