[Terr_]

It doesn't require a constitutional amendment, we can just repeal the law [0] being used, which would ironically involve the same number of votes as keeping the law but slapping down Trump's particular usage of it. (That's now how it originally worked, but the easy-slapdown route got ruled unconstitutional.)

Military alliance stuff might be harder. Some stuff like NATO is supported by actual legislation, but other stuff was set up as a kind of gentleman's agreement with the US President-du-jour on the assumption that successors wouldn't be crazy.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Econom...

[ceejayoz]

> we can just repeal the law [0] being used

Only with a veto-proof majority in both chambers.

[anigbrowl]

Maybe, but vetoes are politically very expensive. Even if he threatens to veto, Congress should still do it. Not doing obvious things because they might run into opposition/problems is a recipe for more and worse of the same.

[ceejayoz]

> Maybe, but vetoes are politically very expensive.

As are felony convictions, top secret docs in a bathroom at your house, sexual assault settlements, and the hundred other career-ending scandals the guy has survived without a scratch so far.

[anigbrowl]

Agreed, but maybe Congress takes action on one thing they'll find it in themselves to take action on a second thing. Having been in a lot of real fights, standing there and doing nothing is almost invariably the worst choice.

[ninkendo]

Congress is 55-ish% Trump’s party and 45-ish% everyone else. Nobody in the Trump party would ever, ever, ever do something Trump didn’t want. The entire party platform is basically “whatever Trump wants”. Anyone who disagrees was primaried out of existence long ago.

There is no congress any more, not as an independent body. There is Trump, and there is a body of people who will, in the majority, do anything Trump wants them to do, and is not independent in any way.

[8note]

theres 0 actual political cost to them.

trump doesnt need anything from congress, and probably wouldnt change tariff policy even after said law is passed in a veto-proof way

[anigbrowl]

Doing nothing and just watching how how dictatorship pans out is also an option, sure.

[Terr_]

Yes, just like I said: "which would ironically involve the same number of votes as keeping the law but slapping down Trump's particular usage of it."

Originally it wasn't veto-able (only needed a Concurrent Resolution of 50% in each house, no Presidential signature) but the Supreme Court ruled that part unconstitutional in the early 80s.