The Gaza Ministry of Health systematically undercounts the dead. First, they only attemp to count direct casualties, which excludes preventable deaths from malnutrition, disease, loss of shelter, etc. Second, their capacity to find the dead is significantly reduced due to the war. This isn’t unique to this situation. For almost any disaster, casualty estimates continue to go up after the disaster itself is over, and there are resources to spend looking for dead bodies.
Congress does not have the constitutional authority to declare a prior Congresses laws invalid. For a bunch of internal stuff like the fillubuster rules, or remote voting, the current Congress can do whatever it wants without presidential review. However once a law is passed through the constitutional process, the constitution does not have a separate process for repealing it. This means that Congress would need to go through the same constitutional process to repeal it, which includes the possibility of a presidential veto.
Having said that, the Supreme Court does have the constitutional authority to declare a law invalid[0], and the President has no veto authority over that. Further, the current Supreme Court has invented out of nothingness two bedrock pillars of constitutional analysis:
The Major Questions Doctrine, which states that questions of major political or economic significance may not be delegated by Congress to the executive branch.
The Non-Delegation Doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate it’s lawmaking authority to other entities.
Since the Supreme Court is an unbiased arbiter of the law, I’m confident that they will apply these principles consistently and determine that Congress’s initial delegation if tarrif authority was unconditional. /s
[0] This is not actually explicit in the Constitution. But has been how it is interpreted since Marbury v Madison in 1803.
Normally, I would respond to this type of argument by explaining how the two party system is structural. But in this case, you are complaining about one of the only politicians that is not part of a political party.
Be sure to check state law before doing this.
In Ohia V Miller (2024), Miller was found guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence after he drunkenly drove a horse drawn buggy. This finding was upheld my the appelete court.
In State v Blowers (1986), the Utah Supreme Court found that riding a horse while intoxicated did not qualify as DUI. This finding had 2 parts: A) A horse is not a vehicle and
B) The provision:
Is unconstitutionally vague.
In the case of Mythbusters v Drunk Driving, the Mybuster found that it is illegal to operate a vehicle while drunk, even on a closed course. However, it is legal for a blind man to operate a vehicle under the direction of a drunk man.