Normally there are rules regarding how long an emergency can last. This is why, I kid you not, the Republican controlled Congress declared there are no more calendar days in this session of Congress. Every day is March 11. So they'll let him do it as long as he likes.

Notably, not the first time this legal fiction has been used, but I don’t really get what the previous uses were for (holidays?). E.g., for the 2021–2022 Congress, section 7 of the War Powers Resolution[1], as well as House rules[2] XIII clause 7, XXII clause 7(c)(1), and XV clause 7 (all of which require something to be done within a prespecified number of either calendar or legislative days) were all suspended

  from 2021-01-03 to 2021-01-28 by HR 8[3],
  from 2021-03-13 to 2021-04-22 by HR 118,
  from 2022-08-01 to 2022-09-30 by HR 1289,
  from 2022-10-03 to 2022-11-11 by HR 1396,
  from 2022-11-21 to 2022-11-28 by HR 1464,
  from 2022-12-22 until the end by HR 1529,

which looks like vacations, campaigning and such? I’m not really sure, but it’s evident the formula was already out there and is not a momentary fit of insanity and/or legislative genius (the Congress before that one used it too, for example), I’m just not sure what it was used for before.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1546

[2] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CLERK-RULE-PAMPHLET-...

[3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolutio... (mutatis mutandis for the others)

As a European I have no idea what that means. How and why that kind of decision can be taken?

House Resolution 211 of the current Congress[1]:

> Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.

Referring to 50 U.S.C. 1622(c) [2]:

> (1) A joint resolution to terminate a national emergency declared by the President shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be. One such joint resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

> [and so on and so forth with fairly stringent time limits all the way through the legislature]

(As somebody who’s never been to the US—come on, am I the only one who finds legal questions like this to be basically irresistible RTFM bait?)

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolutio...

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1622#c or https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:50%20section:...

I've seen my share of "well ackshually, this cool technical hack will circumvent the law and outsmart the judges", but thought judges wouldn't fall for such bullshit. Now, I'm not so sure. This is the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time.

This is not quite like the stereotypical case of that, as the legislature first said it wants something to happen one way, and then—later and with a different set of lawmakers, but still—the same institution effectively said that, on second thought, no, just in this case it wants it to work another way. Which seems like a simple case of the legislature changing its mind, something it should definitely be able to do as a matter of course?..

And I mean, both of the houses participated in the first part but only the lower house in the second (AFAICT), so maybe there’s something iffy about that for example. Then of course there are all the suggestions about how the statute these tariffs were ostensibly instituted under (the IEEPA) may not actually authorize tariffs; or that if it does authorize that, then it effectively amounts to the legislature delegating all of its power over tariffs to the executive, which does not entirely sound in tune with the Constitution.

But you see how this starts to look like something you’d want to consult an actual expert on constitutional law about, not dismiss out of hand or listen to random opinions on the Internet on. It’s not immediately clear what even a perfect court would decide here.

For the extended RTFM: IT's another country's laws and politics. Why am I expected to read their laws and logs of their whatever houses they have to understand something that would not even improve my life? Let alone when their own citizens would have trouble finding these an understanding the meaning down below?

Ah. So that's why it looks like the Groundhog day with the tariffs.

/s

This is also how this shambling ghoul gets what any actual citizen of earth would consider a third term. It's already done! This is why he said "you'll won't have to vote again."

The president is only 50 days into his term forever; time is stopped. Hell upon us eternal.

> Planning tarrifs 90 days out is really stretching the definition

Anything that distracts the president from playing golf is an "emergency".