Posted on 04/08/2025 10:48:43 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
If it reached his desk, President Donald Trump would veto a Senate bill that seeks to limit his authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, Axios reported Monday.
The legislation would require the president to notify Congress of impending tariffs within 48 hours of their being imposed, while also mandating that such tariffs receive congressional approval within 60 days. Under the terms of the bill, Congress would also be allowed to withdraw any tariff at any time.
"If passed, this bill would dangerously hamper the President's authority and duty to determine our foreign policy and protect our national security," a White House statement of administration policy viewed by Axios said. "If S. 1272 were presented to the President, he would veto the bill."
Citing a person familiar with his thinking, Axios reported that Trump was needled by the introduction of the measure, which is backed by Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.
The legislation, which has reportedly received the support of seven Republican senators, is a bipartisan effort by congressional lawmakers to wrest control of Trump's trade powers as global financial markets continue their volatile reaction to the president's reciprocal tariff announcement.
"You don't get a first introduction and get so many people on board, but I think it shows the anxiety that people have," Cantwell told CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
The odds of the bill passing both chambers of Congress and garnering enough signatures to override a Trump veto appear slim, while House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., seem to be standing by the White House.
"I'm sure if they listen to their constituents, consumer challenges are already starting to surface, and certainly the stock market's impact on retirement income
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
The current struggle between the 3 co-equal Branches of government is exactly what is SUPPOSED to happen! THIS is what the Constitution meant to create! Instead of ganging up and cooperating and stripping us of our Rights and Freedoms and our money, most of their time is being spent on fighting amongst themselves over who is in charge of what. Loving it!!
Only a tyrant would veto a bill that takes his power away.
Technically speaking, this shouldn’t take a bill. The Constitution is clear about authority to levy tariffs and it belongs solely to Congress. They could take their case to the SCOTUS without a bill to stake their claim.
On the other hand, President Trump has invoked emergency powers...
Originally our Federal government ran on Tariffs and excise taxes just fine. Then some fools decided an income tax with no limits was necessary and it’s been down hill ever since.
I like tariffs, because then I have a choice. Buy American or buy foreign. Income taxes are decided by the small portion (Poor Americans)who mostly don’t pay those taxes who join with Democrats making up a majority to tax all of us.
That was a major concern with income taxes, when the poor get the ability to tax people richer than them, guess what happens?
We all get poor.
I don’t buy new cars but if I did, I’d buy a American assembled 4 runner over a Japanese or Mexican assembled
4 runner if a tariff made all their prices equal.
Good.
Congress’s favorite is to give or take away executive powers that it doesn’t really have any legitimate say over.
Nobody needed Axios to report this.
Well of course he would and there are not sufficient votes to overdue or at least very doubtful.
The tariff issue started in 1937 when Congress relinquished their authority to FDR. This extends the depression another 4 years.
Actually, any bill that violates the constitution is illegal and can go before the SCOTUS.
The tariff issue started in 1937 when Congress relinquished their authority to FDR. This extended the depression another 4 years. It took WWII to end the depression.
So how in the hell does a tariff on 3.3% of total GDP cause and/or lengthen a depression. Answer: IT CAN'T!!!
Do you mean “not veto”?
Uh, no it didn’t.
The Feds monetary policy of tight money did.
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.