On Thursday afternoon, the House of Representatives passed a pair of amendments aimed at curtailing President Trump’s war-making ability, particularly as it relates to attacking Iran. The amendments were added to the WW2 Merchant Mariner Gold Medal Act.
The first amendment, passed 228-175, noted that no military action against Iran could take place without prior Congressional authorization. Four Republicans joined most Democrats in voting for the measure, 21 abstained. Though this is legally speaking always the case, recent presidents have claimed the ability to start unilateral wars when Congress doesn’t explicitly preclude them.
The second amendment, passed 236-166, repeals the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq (AUMF). 11 Republicans joined most Democrats in voting for the measure, 22 Republicans did not vote. This AUMF was meant to allow the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Some have argued the AUMF also allows attacks in Syria and Iran, despite not specifically saying that, because they are close to Iraq.
The stronger Republican support for repealing the AUMF shows that party’s unity in pro-war legislation is starting to crack a bit. The AUMF vote was likely less controversial because President Trump suggested on Twitter that he didn’t object, and invited Representatives to “vote your heart.” He did, however, rail against the other vote.
The future of the legislation was uncertain in the Republican-led Senate, where an effort to pass an Iran-related war powers resolution has been stalled during Trump’s impeachment trial.
42 thoughts on “House Votes to Repeal 2002 AUMF, Rein in Trump on Iran War”
Government on paper: Congress votes to authorize war, then the President executes it
Government in reality: The President executes a war, then Congress votes to stop it.
Clarification – Congress votes to stop it….but only because the president is a republican and the majority in the House is democrat (or visa versa if the parties are reversed).
Suppose that the next President is a Democrat. If these bills become law they are laws for that Democratic President too. Or do you predict that Congress will repeal these laws and go back to 2002?
Odd, don’t recall gop doing anything like this when they owned congress during the Obama era. Guess your “theory” is just a common GOP gripe with no basis in reality.
What did you imagine it would look like when Congress decided enough was enough ? The empire has its miserable claws in deep.
Actually, Congress usually does nothing at all.
This is just legislative theatre; a quadrillion-dollar global oil derivatives bubble rides on Iran war NOT happening. .
If there were a Democrat president on the cusp of waging illegal, immoral, and pointless war with Iran, the Democrats in congress would have voted against the measure and the republicans would have voted for it. The ONLY reason any of those bloodthirsty pieces of garbage in Congress oppose war (with the exception of a small few who maintain principles regardless), is because the “other side” wants it.
If President Trump signs these bills into law then they have to be obeyed by a future Democratic President too.
Because their sponsors —their minders — want it There is not one thing done in Congress on the basis of politicians’s own judgment. They are brokers of money and power. And at times, not brokers but servants. Take lobbying out of politics — and see what happens. I think loliticians will be lost. Politicians are mostly uninformed of the issues at hand.
Almost. War with Iran would pop a quadrillion-dollar oil derivatives bubble that a lot of elites are plugged into, and by extension, the world financial markets. War with Iran would result in a global markets crash to end all crashes.
Global reset doesn’t look so good to elite progressives when they’re cut off from the Presidential protection system.
Makes for a good list of Republicans that supposedly anti war Trump supporters need to primary this upcoming election so their Trump can do what he says he wants to do…
First of all, Joshua, DJT wants to put an end to all endless wars that Bush Jr. and Obama started and escalated, respectively. It was Obama who sent US troops into Syria in 2011 .. DJT withdrew most of them, but Bonkers Bolton and Fat-face Pompeo sabotaged his agenda of pulling out ALL US troops who are in Syria illegally.
As far as Iran’s concerned, it was Fat-face and Israeli PM Bibi Nutty&Yahoo who pressured DJT into ordering the assassination of IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani .. DJT didn’t issue the order on his own. This escalated tensions between the US and Iran to a dangerous level, as Iran lobbed missiles into 2 US bases in Iraq in retaliation for Soleimani’s murder (via drone strike). Iran certainly doesn’t want a war with the US .. It hasn’t attacked its neighbors in 500+ years, and any wars it fought were all defensive in nature. That’s one reason the US cannot launch a war with Iran .. the other is that it’s suicidal to do so.
One title of our President is Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. The assassination of Suleiman was done by US Armed Forces. All it needed was an order from the President only. If, as you claim, DJT did not issue (=sign) the order on his own, who was his co-signer?
If a President has the sole power to act then he or she cannot hide behind “I was pressured by such-and-such person(s).”
Should President Trump have asked for advice on this assassination? Absolutely yes. Did he get advice not to kill Suleiman? One should hope that he did.
Given what we know about Trump’s character he alone made the decision and no one was looking over his shoulder when he wrote of said “go.”
If someone is pressuring poor little spanky, all the more reason he needs to go, and never should have been there.
“It was Obama who sent US troops into Syria in 2011 .. DJT withdrew most of them”
Well, sort of.
Obama sent a few hundred troops into Syria.
Trump sent several thousand.
And then Trump withdrew some of the thousands he sent. Probably not down to the Obama numbers, but some.
Con you once, shame on the con man. Con you 500 times, at some point it’s you conning yourself.
I agree Thomas, Eileen is conning herself. Even telling her 500 times, conning is shame on whomself. Well, sort of.
Damn, we are that close to utopia. If only they’d just let the Donald make one decision on his own. Of course he did pardon those war criminals all by his lonesome. Or did Johnny Rambo talk him into that?
I don’t blame trump, he is a hapless stooge that Kardashianed his way into the White House, despite his main field of study, cheating at golf. No, it is on his supporters, cult members all, claiming things that never happened. When gone, we will be left with these fact challenged acolytes, such as we haven’t seen since the inquisition.
DJT put more troops in the withdrew some…. but we will see if he Vetoes resolutions or not. But see whatever you want in Trumps actions, he didn’t encourage removal of any war hawks from congress, he is not helping form the party around an anti interventionist policy, he will leave you republicans the same as you were before he got into the presidency while refusing to uphold the constitution the same as Bush or Obama or any of the other betrayers who also claimed to be anti war, and who’s followers continued to support them despite the betrayal…
I hope someone is collating a list of Republican names who abstained or voted no on both votes.
I might have expanded the measures to include ban economic sanctions, targeted assassinations, and those related to banking operations to enable international transactions.
I’m certain that each and every one of those Republicans got a memo from the Likudniks who control the White House reminding them of the fact that Sheldon Adelson is the single biggest contributor to Republican congressional campaigns.
These people think we are idiots. When public grumbles, or anything unsavory is going on — they start the same charade. Like it was with the war in Yemen. When public became bombarded by pictures of starving kids — it was time to blunt the impression of our own. contribution to the unpleasant news coverage. Same now, war, war and more war — bombing Iraqi soldiers in their own country, and diverting our attention to assassination of an Iranian. A man traveling in a commercial flight with publicly known itinerary. That is — we ready forgot about Iraqi soldiers being killed in Iraq.
But when it looks bad in public, it is time to play legislation game. They know exactly who can afford to play or who cannot. Trump is dog whistling to his no-stupid-wars die hards, by letting Republicans vote their conscience. Naturally, Senate will sweep it under a rug of many colors, Trump will move in to new twitting.
Hopefully like Yemen, we will lose track of legislative theater.
This theater in Washington is getting stale. Initiatives through states can be more effective.
Constitution is clear on the matter. Wars must be authorized, and MONEY appropriated.
But they are all very clever. They just load up money for wars into Pentagon, Energy Department, State Department, and all kinds of goodies for regime change — everywhere. From Education to Environment.
So now, all they have to do is spend money on wars, and cry and borrow in order to pay for Social Security and Medicaid.
Bianca, you are simply misinformed on Obama’s opposition, mostly within his own party to the aid in the Yemen war, from the start. It is not “theater”. Antiwar candidates got trashed by voters,….Ron Paul, Kucinich. Where are they ? The US voters put them out to pasture.
You write and research well, yet your statements on congress as some sort of unified entity is just innocent. Congress is not simple to follow, not like the executive branch. It is slow, and chaotic, by design. The only party that is unified in thought, and votes on what you mentioned, is the hobnail booted gop.
The fact that this is a vote that can be vetoed is disturbing. That puts the executive totally in charge of war from declaration to waging. Unacceptable
True, a flaw. Yet, if there weren’t so many hobnail-booted gop in congress, they could override it. Then, if he don’t like it, …frog-march..
Almost immediately after we became a sovereign nation an analogous situation to the current one arose with the Barbary Pirates of the State of Tripoly which had been attacking our merchant ships which had lost their protection by the King of England. Secretary of State Jefferson recommended that Congress declare war on Tripoli. Congress refused. Did President Washington attack Tripoli without a declaration of war? No, he did not. Eventually and for many years we paid Tripoli ransom to stop its attacks on our merchant fleet. When Jefferson became President he stopped that ransom and Congress passed the “Act for Protection of Commerce and Seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan Corsairs” which clearly gave hum and his successor Madison the authority to attack, but to attack only men-o-war of Tripoli. And therein lies the constitutionality of the war against Tripoli. Presidents Jefferson and Madison did tot get carte blanche to attack whomever thy wanted to attack thereby becoming US Kings. Only Tripolitan Corsairs and no one else.
The “Act for Protection of Commerce and Seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan Corsairs” illustrates that the AUMF is patently unconstitutional. The reminder that President Trump needs Congressional approval to begin a war on Iran is not needed but is useful at this state of tensions.
President Trump needs an “Act for Protection of the United States against Iranian Terrorists” for another assassination of an Iranian General.
Unfortunately, there’s that damned war on terror authorization.
American war against Iran is reminiscent of American war against Tripoli. Now the world knows because of many factors including the internet, repeated established lying habits of USA , mass murdering habits and failures in wars in Iraq and elsewhere .
Tripoli battle was based on same lies . America at that time just like Europeans were exactly doing same things that the pirates out of the shore of the weakened state of Tripoli doing .
Presidents are free to move military forces at their discretion.
Congress only had real power over war when there was no significant standing military and every war had to be fought with newly-raised, newly funded armed forces.
A close reading of that era, indicates that Jefferson and Madsen worked willingly and voluntarily with Congress, but there’s really nothing compelling them to.
Except, military funding was far more discretionary and withholdable then than now.
Once this is official, and since the US dishonored the Status of Forces agreement by attacking Iraqi govt militias, and since Iraq’s parliament unanimously passed a resolution for the removal of all US troops, what is the remaining legal basis for any continuing US military presence in Iraq..? Surely there are lawyers somewhere who care about such formalities.
Not enough to throw the bum out.
The Iraqi have yet to deliver formal written notice for the Americans to leave.
Odds are, they never will as the new Iraqi elite is tied to U.S. dollars.
Senate puts on political theater over impeachment trial, media says we are all ganna die of corona virus, meanwhile white house starts war/keeps killing.
AUMF makes it legal as far as US is concerned . Nazi must have also various deliberations before starting war.
Legislative theatre, but a good show. Nothing like a quadrillion dollars in oil derivatives riding on no war with Iran, to actually end the threat of such a war.
The U.S. and globalist elites fear impoverishment more than death.
Comments are closed.