Trump won’t get impeached. And if he did his successor would continue his tariff agenda.
Instead I would like to see the House and Senate pass legislation that limits tariff powers for any POTUS by requiring their assent. My understanding is that the SC would accept that.
Maybe start by repealing Taft-Hartley!
Apparently the US asked for two things:
a say in any trade agreements Canada makes with other countries.
Some relaxation in French language laws.
The first one is clearly absurd. It’s a show stopper for any country. If they asked for that seriously, and it seems they did, then the US is just a bunch of clowns.
For the second one, it may not be clear to others, but the ongoing minor frictions with french language laws is part of our cultural identity as Canadians - it is that deep and that serious that it’ll unify Canadians on that topic alone. French isn’t just spoken in Quebec. It’s spoken in entire swaths of Northern Ontario, the east coast is still barely tolerating English. Eastern ontario where I grew up has places that don’t speak English daily. It’s tightly woven in a lot of places.
And the Smoot-Hawley, which was used recently as a hammer onto some nail.
Definitely.
And the various delegated authorities below or at least that evidence be produced to support actions.
Key Delegated Tariff Authorities
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: Allows the president to adjust tariffs if the Department of Commerce finds that specific imports threaten national security (used for steel and aluminum duties). [1]
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: Permits the president to take action, including tariffs, against foreign countries that engage in unfair trade practices or violate trade agreements.
Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930: Empowers the president to impose new or additional duties (up to 50%) on goods from foreign countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce. [1, 2]
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: Grants balance-of-payments authority to impose temporary tariffs (up to 15% for 150 days) to address serious U.S. trade deficits or currency depreciation. [1]
Be aware that there is a common misunderstanding in the meaning of the term “impeachment”.
An impeachment is analogous to an indictment. Trump 1.0 was impeached twice. Neither impeachment resulted in a conviction. A conviction would have led to his being removed from office, and might have resulted in him being banned from holding public office in the future.
A simple majority vote in the House is sufficient to impeach. If the Dems get control of the House next year with more than, say, a 2-3 seat majority, I think there’s a reasonable chance Trump will be impeached next year. (Whether the Dems should seek impeachment is debatable, and I decline to express an opinion on that subject in this comment.)
After impeachment, a two-thirds supermajority vote in the Senate is required to convict. The best realistic case for the Dems in the Senate this midterm is their getting 56-57 seats. (I think a bare majority at 51-52 seats is more likely). I think Trump would have to become much more unhinged before you’d find the 10+ GOP Senate votes needed to convict.
EDIT: Personally, I think that if Trump became so unhinged that 10+ GOP senators would vote to convict after impeachment, the 25th Amendment would have already been invoked.
I think we’ve got enough evidence to say that no amount of unhinge-ment will cause more than a few odd R Senators to vote for it. And those odd Senators will only vote that way after it is determined that their votes will not affect the outcome.
I understand the US impeachment process: I was just using the previous poster’s wording but I should have said “removed from office.” Having said that I don’t think he will be impeached either as that is a pointless exercise if that is as far as it gets.
If the Dems get the house, good chance we get Impeachment 3 Epstein Boog-a-loo. It might even get enough votes in the House to send it to the Senate.
The odds of getting 67 Senators to vote yes on removal are about as good as the odds of the Democrats winning 67 seats in the Senate this November.
I can describe some examples of truly unhinged behavior that would likely be enough to force the cabinet and/or some GOP senators to act.
I think it’s extremely unlikely that Trump would become that unhinged…or at least be allowed to publicly display such unhingement… but I do work in a role where I worry about and seek to manage the risk from extremely improbable events, and I do have an imagination quite capable of “going there”.
I think you might be giving congressional Dems too much credit.
Some representatives are going to feel pressure from activists in the party to pursue impeachment, even though there’s no hope of conviction and even though the pursuit of impeachment will only inspire and energize the Glorious Leader’s cult.
I can see a principled argument being made that it’s important for someone to stand up and say “this behavior is WRONG” by obtaining an impeachment. Unfortunately, it’d be a strategic error.
The conflict between principle and political strategy sucks.
That would eliminate the need for the Senate to do anything, and that is their hope: to keep doing nothing.
Fixed, for accuracy.
No. It just sucks that good political strategy sometimes has to go against good principles.
If Dems get into power they should have an active legislative agenda rather than impeachment.
Um, veto power to the president. Overturned with 2/3 majority in each house.
And, who is the president, again?
Even then there’s the problem that they won’t have 60 votes in the Senate to invoke cloture, and they won’t have enough votes to override the inevitable vetoes from the Glorious Leader.
I don’t know what the optimal strategy would be to avoid eroding whatever support they’ve built while we wait for the 2028 elections.
Yes but it shows the US voters they have good policies and that the GOP president is the obstacle. Good positioning for 2028 election.
Hasnt worked in the past.
That’s all I got. Sorry.
You’re putting way too much faith in American voters.
Remember: American voters were so weak-minded that they put Trump 2.0 in office.
US negotiators blamed Canada for last minute requests that ended the trade talks. Instead it looks like Carney’s version of US’ late actions was the truth.
“Trump told CNN he had added new conditions into the trade negotiations with Canada in the 11th hour, saying it “sounds like me,” when asked about Canadian officials’ saying U.S. added late-minute demands.”