Posted on 04/03/2025 9:32:06 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Grassley is not Uniparty. Maybe he’s a Judas Goat leading the Dems to self-destruct. But definitely not uniparty.
When I saw them...i also saw them as lighter as well...but looking at the market itself...and todays articles about it...it was apparently much higher than Wall Street thought.
Good luck Chuck! (with that)
Grassley is a SNAKE! Why? Once a snake, always a snake.
We won’t likely have term limit him. God will “term limit” him soon.
“(born September 17, 1933)”
He’ll be 92 in September.
Grassley does what ADM tells him to do. He is a creep welcoming in the illegals to work the slaughterhouses, ethanol mandates, high fructose corn syrup in everything, GMO soy in everything.
Their votes will not change anything until next year because the Republican House inserted a language in the budget bill last month that prevent them to bring up the issue to the floor.
Was this a rhetorical question?
Yes they can write a bill and vote on it, then send it to the House of Representatives who can also vote on it. If they pass it through the House of Representatives, they can submit it to President Trump who can sign it into law. Or he can ignore it and it will become law. Or he can veto it and send it back to the Senate and they can override the veto and send it to the House of Representatives who can also override the veto. At that point it will become a law. Only problem is that they need 2/3’s of both houses to vote to override the veto.
I am willing to accept that President Trump can have his tariff authority removed but I don’t think it will happen. Right now they are grandstanding. When it all comes to a head the efficacy of President Trump’s tariff plan will have been amply demonstrated. Anyone who stands in the way will get bulldozed. At the end of the day, not enough of them will put their political offices on the line. Those that do will regret the decision.
The 17A pulled the keystone from our Framers’ Constitution.
The Constitution acts upon both the people and the states. Republican theory demands and requires a senate of state representation.
Our experience shows how two popularly elected legislative bodies are not only silly, but also dangerous to our liberty.
Hopefully, the Republican controlled House will never pass it, and it’s DOA. Why they never tried to control tariffs with any RAT President only shows me what backstabbers they are.
Like no foreign country that gets U.S. aid money should ever be allowed to charge the U.S. tariffs at all.
Would this require amending the Constitution?
What he should do is a trade bill. Get it passed and to the presidents desk to sign. It was cool when congress used to do their job so the president didn’t have to.
They are so jealous. He is doing the things they should have been doing for decades, and doing them in months, not decades; and they are apoplectic with envy. Lazy richardheads.
When people say the ‘market’ is good or bad, they generally mean Dow Jones or SP500 or NASDAQ, which are full of big companies that depend on cheap Chinese crap or do lots of international business. Tariffs will hurt them. But the majority of businesses, that employ the majority of Americans, don’t care about most tariffs aside from maybe some stuff they purchase, but that’s it.
This might have even more relevance now for states that rely on specific industries for their economic health.
Let me offer a hypothetical:
Suppose we were from a small state whose main economy was a steel mill and the ore mines that supply it. Whom should we prefer to represent our state in the Senate: 1) a pre-17th amendment selection of an heir to the steel mill, or 2) a post-17th amendment politician who aligned with a national party to receive campaign funds from a large state like New York to outspend his opponent?
The 17th amendment did more than just appear to break up "aristocracy" in the Senate; it forced elections onto the Senators. In order to compete in those elections, the Senators must constantly solicit financing. That financing comes from many sources, most NOT aligned with the interests of the state.
Back to our hypothetical, should we expect the heir to the steel mill to have more concern about legislation protecting the steel mill and the supplying mines than, say, bathroom equality? If the steel heir personally benefits from the success of the steel mill, don't the citizens of our state also benefit from the economy it produces and sustains? Would our steel heir support a liberal party's signature "green" legislation that would shut down our mines and send our steel production overseas?
I think the 17th amendment is what gave teeth to national bloc party politics. Today, Senators are beholden to the Party apparatus for their campaign funding, so their first loyalties are to party leaders and not state legislators. In exchange for campaign financing, Senators are expected to support a party agenda that is often in direct opposition to the interests of the people in their states.
To continue the hypothetical, would our pre-17th amendment steel-mill heir turned Senator support a tariff on countries that are subsidizing their steel industries that undercut our state's steel economy?
Or, would our post-17th amendment elected Senator block tariffs on foreign subsidized steel because it would hurt the agenda of the opposition party President despite hurting our state's economy in the process, just to keep the party election funds coming?
Here is a direct link to your original essay: Wanted: An Aristocratic Senate
-PJ
McConnell is already on that list. He voted with the others yesterday on the Senate bill.
-PJ
I couldn't agree more.
It took me a while to find this one:
"Federalism had long rested six feet under when democrats passed Obama’s notorious and deceptively named “Affordable Health Care Act” in March 2010."
"The states’ reaction illustrated the tragic disconnect between them and their post-17th Amendment senators. By January of 2011, twenty-seven states challenged the constitutionality of Obamacare in federal court. Twenty-two senators from those states had voted for the law. In seven of the twenty-seven states, both senators voted for Obamacare!"
Talk about disconnect!
"Having dispensed with representing state legislatures since 1913, these at-large politicians from geographic areas called states gather in an institution with little apparent purpose beyond reelection and accumulating wealth. The modern senate is as useful to the continued life of our republic as an appendix is to the human body. Both are vestigial organs that long ago lost their original functions. Like an appendix, which can burst and kill its owner, a senate without institutional pride and purpose may, through neglect of its duties, one day endanger the continuance of our beloved republic."
https://articlevblog.com/2018/01/federalism-in-the-first-congress/
👍
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.