The US Constitution makes clear that war declaration is a power
exclusively of Congress. Yet earlier this year, both houses of Congress
spoke on the Yemen War, declaring it unauthorized and demanding its end.
President Trump vetoed that resolution, and insisted the war keeps
going.
But can Trump just do that? Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), the initial sponsor of the Yemen bill, is hoping to challenge that in the Supreme Court, arguing that the nature of the War Powers Act precludes presidential vetoes.
It’s not an unreasonable question to ask the court. The 1952 Steel
Seizure Case similarly saw the Supreme Court rejecting a president’s
claim of unilateral power as the head of the military in wartime, and
Trump is arguing that this same power entitles him to veto the War
Powers challenge. The Supreme Court has never ruled on War Powers Act
cases before, because the bill has not been substantially used.
This would be a hugely important constitutional case, questioning
whether Congress retains the war-making powers it was granted centuries
ago, or if the recent custom of letting the president dictate foreign
policy has somehow stripped Congress of this authority, as if it somehow
atrophied from disuse.
“as if it somehow
atrophied from disuse”
Can balls do that? *cringes*
Good thing I’m not in Congress, then.
This is soooo stupid. All Trump has to do is show the court that he’s stopped participating in Sauda Arabia’s war (participation that was always meager), and the case will be dismissed. Courts don’t decide speculative issues. If the dems were serious about this, it would be about Afghanistan! It’s such an obvious hoax I don’t know how anyone with half a brain can fall for it.
Then why not let the resolution stand? No skin off Trump’s ass since he stopped our “meager” participation.
Are you sure we are no longer in “participation” with our Saudi butchers & bombers pals and murderers… The long arm of Saudi bribes reaches every corner of this planet. Probably into the Trump family interests too. Better let the courts have a go at the lawlessness in this matter. We are all Kashoggis now…
George, hell no. I made that statement for the sake of argument. The Saudis are dependent on others(the UK for one), not just us, to continue their onslaught of Yemen.
Because no president wants to see his powers eroded in any area for any reason. Trump is hardly the first here.
When Trump vetoed the resolution, he changed the emphasis from participating/supporting what the Saudis are doing to a Constitutional argument. The SC needs to clearly re-state that Congress alone has war-making responsibility, not the Executive and nothing has circumscribed that fact.
Huh ? You think trump is using US troops in Yemen because he wants a court ruling ?
Come on, dude…he didn’t plan on it becoming a Constitutional issue – he vetoed the resolution because he believes he can do whatever he pleases and really dislikes it whenever anyone tells him he can’t. But because of his veto (to protect His presumed power) the issue became whether the Executive has the power to commit war even though the Constitution exclusively grants that power to the Congress.
Ok, just clearing up what I read in our previous post. His actions are to support the Saudi regime, and to sell missiles.
It’s huge if it sets a precedent, I suppose.
This is one reason Trump is so wonderful: Dems want to fight it in the theatre, but nearly all politicians, regardless of party love war.
The theatre can matter, I suspect… What would truly be significant is if they voted against intervening in Syria, since there is absolutely no justification there.
Or anyplace else that the war mongers wish to bomb and dispoil, Syria Venezuela, Iran or North Korea. Top of the list of nuclear rogue States is Jared”s pet welfare client.
“Theater” ? Yes, trump and the GOP would love to turn congress into theater, then burn the theater down. If the end participation in Yemen goes into effect, any US assets discovered there would have their order givers brought to the dock as “Iran Contra” did. The true theater, is the delusion of an “antiwar” trump supporter, as the Yemen vote clearly indicates.
Trump is doing well on trade at least. He has certainly changed far less than I’d hoped. He went in promising to do a good job and might have just been intimidated by DC. I guess the reason doesn’t matter.
There’s always hope, just as with Obama, that Trump will accomplish something positive.
Unfortunately one of the few positives that Obama accomplished, Trump destroyed. The JCPOA. Still waiting for anything positive from Trump.
Europe is holding Iran to it, I guess. It’s alarming if the Saudis also pursue nukes.
Guess I gotta splain this again….Syria, and Afghanistan are authorized under the bogus war on terror resolution. (ISIS is deemed “terrorist”). There is not enough political support for ending the war on terror, it is proving difficult enough with trump and a GOP Senate to end the intervention in Yemen. Why bother attempting the difficult, when the easier is difficult enough. And again, you, or me, have no idea what US assets are being used in Yemen. Just stop.