Passed in the Senate in February and the House in March, the Iran War Powers Resolution appears to have come to an end on Wednesday when it was vetoed by President Trump, who insisted it was “very insulting” and dangerous to limit his ability to attack Iran.
The resolution was a preemptive War Powers Act challenge to a war with Iran, aiming to note that Congress has not in any way authorized a US war against Iran, and ordering them to stop any military actions related to this unauthorized conflict.
Trump has repeatedly argued that the Constitution gives him the absolute right to make decisions on who to attack, saying it was insulting to suggest otherwise, and that it would be dangerous to any way limit the possibility of the US carrying out preemptive attacks.
The War Powers Act gives Congress the power to limit such actions. That said, neither the House nor Senate passed the resolution with anywhere near a veto-proof majority, and that likely means Trump’s veto is the end of this particular legal challenge, for now.
Unfortunately, allowing Congress the power to tell Trump NOT to attack someone, also gives then the power to tell him TO attack someone.
So far Trump has refrained from attacking Iran. Its not militarily practical and political suicide.
For the most part, this was Democrat political theatre. At the time the measure was passed, there was a quadrillion dollar oil derivatives game dependent on the Straights of Hormuz remaining open and no war with Iran.
“Financial N-Option Will Settle Trump’s Oil War” – Pepe Escobar, Global Research, Jan. 6, 2020.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/financial-n-option-will-settle-trumps-oil-war/5699905
The derivatives were unwound into the COVID-19 global economic implosion. The same thing would have happened then, without COVID-19, had the war taken place, except the elite Democratic factions of the one percent of the one percent were not pre-positioned to take advantage of the collapse.
Now war is not possible (apart from conventional unwinnability) by the globalist economic implosion. The U.S. can’t even afford a down payment on another quagmire. Not that they couldn’t stumble into a conflict.
The rising tide of sinophobia is about as dangerous, if not a little more. With only 300 nukes, China is doable in a limited quick and cheap nuclear war.
Such a conflict would likely leave the U.S. minus two or three West Coast cities and a few Pacific bases, but leave globalist Europe unscathed.
Not for long. Read up on nuclear winter.
I did.
https://www.wired.com/2011/02/nuclear-war-climate-change/
Read up on hypersonics. MAD is being challenged. Which is crazy, but there you go.
https://www.economist.com/special-report/2018/01/25/why-nuclear-stability-is-under-threat
“Unfortunately, allowing Congress the power to tell Trump NOT to attack someone, also gives then the power to tell him TO attack someone.”
They’ve always had that power. It’s called “declaring war.”
No, its not the same thing.
The President decides how to deploy troops in war. Congress may declare war, but the President as supreme commander conducts the war.
If a President really thinks war is a bad idea, he would conduct it accordingly to the degree possible as supreme commander including delaying attacks and stalling for negotiations.
Essentially, Congress has no say in in the strategic, operational, or tactical conduct of war save to fund a military if they want one.
“So far trump has refrained from attacking Iran”…the assasination of an Iranian general is an act of war. Nice try.
Obsolete thinking. I don’t see a shooting war with official troops and weapons engaged in anger, do you?
Obama’s invasion of Syria was an act of war, but Assad is not taking the U.S. up on that.
‘Act of war’ is a legal nicety clarifying when the rules of war are to be applied, and its now illegal under the U.N. for nations to engage in war except in direct self defense.
Soleimani was a one-off; no further attacks occurred and Iran retaliated with a missile strike into Irag without declaring war.
But he waging an economic war against Iran…and has threatened it militarily. The man’s nuts!
Can Iran fight back? This isn’t 19th century Europe, where a so-called ‘act of war’ invited an actual war. From Kellog-Briand to the UN Charter, although war has been made an ‘illegal’ act, enforcement remained a political question.
Nothing says the U.S. can’t be a diplomatic and economic bully under international law, nor is anyone crazy enough to make that a casis belli over pressing for a negotiated solution since nuclear weapons.
American acts of war only mean, Iran has the right to shoot back, and be subject to the rules of war when they lose. Its not a magical means to victory. Acting militarily on an act of war and having the ‘right’ to fight one, only means something if you can actually win the war.
When war was made illegal, it only opened the door to extralegal warfare, actions which would have been ‘acts of war’, became legal ‘diplomatic’ weapons. Even the murder of Soloemani, has no redress except perhaps under Iraqi criminal law against murder, which isn’t being done.
(I don;t agree with all the conclusions of the articles I cite, just use them for the factual information they present).
“Making war illegal changed the world. But it’s becoming too easy to break the law” – Oona A Hathaway, Scott J Shapiro, The Guardian, Sept. 14, 2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/14/making-war-illegal-changed-the-world-but-its-becoming-too-easy-to-break-the-law
“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. “In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. “The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war… and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” James Madison, April 20, 1795
Every war increases the power of the Federal Government.
war feeds
the buzzards
of the arms makers
who wrap themselves
by polluted flag
to chase a profit margin
higher and cheaper
overseas
kids and fools
clamor aboard
the terrorist train
to defile virtually
every ethic
they’ve been taught their whole lives
but alas
too late gi joe
your soul is poisoned by dirty deeds
done very dirty cheap
now go home
heres a wheelchair and flag
convince the next pigeon
to come on board
thats a good citizen
boy
So can we stop any enduring myth about checks and balances on the POTUS ? He is effectively a Caesar.
Exactly. Every Administration and every government agency does not willingly cede authority/power that was granted earlier. The CIA calls their legal basis for action an “authorization”.
No, a clown. Caesar knew what he was doing. Trump doesn’t.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president. A majority of Congress has now specifically declared their opposition to the president starting a war with Iran. It’s insulting to the Constitution that Trump thinks it would be ok to do it anyway if he wants. Regardless of any legal technicalities, clearly Trump is philosophically opposed to fulfilling his oath of office, “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Unwillingness to perform the job he has sworn to do should be the epitome of an impeachable offense. But finding loopholes around the obvious is what he has an army of legal experts for, and Congress too is hardly willing to perform the duties of their office.
Looks like DJT and his kabalist bosses are willing to let that matter of legal interpretation get “tied up in the courts”..
This is a GOP failure. Everyone knows what trump wants, no mystery there. What we are observing is the gop congress not observing its responsibility under the constitution. War powers belong to Congress, plain and simple.
Senate just let the veto stand. Aye (override veto): 49, Nay: 44. Trump can now bring the U.S. to war against Iran without restriction.
“This was a very insulting resolution, introduced by Democrats as part of a strategy to win an election on November 3 by dividing the Republican Party,” Trump added. “The few Republicans who voted for it played right into their hands.”
Not to worry Donald. Those few republicans will still blindly back you just like the other party will blindly back Biden.
Really wars ? Voting dem, considering the arithmetic of this vote, is “voting blindly” ? What’s blind ? not being able to discern the difference in the parties when the arithmetic is too obvious for words.
That is exactly what the Dems will do. They suck as much as the GOP. What’s going on is a gang war between the two crime families disguised as political parties.
Sheesh, if the dems sucked as much as the gop, the vote would have been 100-0….for war. But, it wasn’t . Is the arithmetic really that hard ? It’s not the dems fault voters keep sending the jackbooted GOP in to run the country.
Tell that to the Libyans and the Syrians, genius. You people have a lot of blood on your hands.
I agree. I am a certified “lessor evil” voter. The gop wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the prime cause of the arab spring, and the revolts throughout the Mideast. The Obama administration reacted terribly. Yet, you can be sure, with a GOP administration, the revolts would have resulted in a large scale invasion in Syria, Libya, or both. As soon as trump got in office, he invaded Syria with 5000 marines. Consider…if gop voted like dems in congress, neither Iraq invasion happen. No invasions and sanctions, no 9/11, no Afghanistan, no rubbled ME societies, no refugees, no arab spring. Sure you want to compare which party has “blood on their hands” ?
I sure do. Both crime families have blood on their hands. There is a term for this. “Bi-partisanship”.
Arithmetic is not your cup of tea….
Your arithmetic can’t be questioned. My thing with the votes on the wars or the resolutions to limit Trump’s ability to wage them is what comes after the votes. A case in point would be the vote to limit Trump on using force against Iran. There were 224 members of the house that voted for that resolution. Now compare that number to the 387 who recently urged that the UN arms embargo against Iran be renewed. They don’t want Trump to attack and yet they say that Iran can’t be trusted to buy or sell weapons. The votes might be there but the enmity never goes away. Voting on resolutions and then ignoring or agreeing with all our other belligerence makes those votes lacking in the sincerity it will take to make changes.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/05/04/overwhelming-majority-of-us-house-of-representatives-urges-renewal-of-un-arms-embargo-on-iran/
Priorities…trump nearly attacked Iran after Iran downed the spy drone, he assassinated an Iranian general, a blatant act of war, and he is threatening to war on the sea, and more. He alone ended the nuclear treaty and blockaded Iran, another act of war. So, amongst all this, you cast shade on the only political entity trying to stop the dangerous momentum because they supported some arms embargo. Right.
I haven’t commented on Trumps actions? The conversation was about the Democrats. I used the arms embargo as an example of them being in lockstep with the Republicans. And you talk as if that is a minor issue? Listen to the rhetoric behind it and how both parties are in agreement on how Iran is the most destabilizing actor in the entire region. This along with the constant accusation, by both parties, of them being the world’s leading sponsor of state terrorism. I don’t hear the Democrats clamoring for the sanctions to end or anything but sporadic complaining about the nuke deal or anything regarding our thrashing of Iran’s sovereignty. The votes were against Trump using force not about the US recognizing Iran as a legitimate sovereign country. Nothing is solved until that happens whether or not we go to war.
Well, the Obama nuclear deal sanctions on Iran were supposed to be lifted starting 2/2017…did the dems prevent that ? What party took power ?
“The conversation was about democrats”…no, it is about the congressional vote. On this antiwar page, it is indeed curiouser and curiouser that, like after the Yemen vote, the comments tend toward criticism of the dems. Sheesh. Let’s be clear, the gop is a jackbooted militant polity, their votes, their wars, prove it everytime. Their voters will accept any war, any time. No support for dems, or consistent criticism of the gop nightmare, near universal gingoist support for war and death. It is an election year, this antiwar page should be full of commentary to get rid of the gop wherever they hold power. That is what the record shows.
And what did the dems do when Trump decided to withdraw from the agreement? Anything? They spent months and months dialed in on Russia-gate and nary a peep on Trump’s withdrawal. Do we hear their outrage over the “maximum pressure campaign” that is destroying Iran’s economy like we heard their outrage of Trump’s collusion with Russia?
The conversation was about the democrats and the republicans having loyalty to Biden and Trump even though they are both disgusting. That was what my original comment was about and that is what you replied to.
You can’t possibly say that I don’t criticize Trump and his republican policies. Even Raimondo accused me of having TDS.
My point was, and is, there is no peace party. You yourself said you vote for the “lesser of evils”. So what is your problem with me criticizing one of the “evils”? If you want me to say the republicans are more evil, I can do that. But both Biden and Trump are terrible and if there is any differences they aren’t enough to make either look good.
And thinking intelligently as verses emoting is not your forte.
War authorization votes are easy to research, requires no emoting at all. Now, ignoring those votes requires a great deal of emotion, mostly the “you can’t make me look at it” kind.
It’s okay, Dave. Just admit you’re a partisan hack every bit as bad as a Sean Hannity follower. It’s all about “your team” getting over the other team even if it means more people being killed.
Totally admit to being a “partisan hack”. Foreign policy is an important issue for me as a voter. If the records were reversed, I would vote gop. How do you determine who to vote for ?
No war between the parties. Did you see any Dem step out of line or ask for bailouts of the poorest of the poor when the Don’t CARES Act was passed? Did you even see one democrat say anything against the bailout of the .1%? What did they get for bailing out people that shouldn’t even get bailouts or at the very least should have to pay them back with interest?
I quoted Trump and what I thought was his meaning. I wasn’t talking about the arithmetic of the vote. I was talking about party loyalty no matter what. I’m sure Mike Lee and Rand Paul will be back in the fold come election time. And I’m sure the democrats will hold their noses and be on board with Biden.
Spot on.
DJT lovs to dance to Bibi’s Hava Nagila.
Actually, Solly, DJT despises Nutty&Yahoo. Remember, he dumped the Israeli tyrant some time ago, He’s only following the adage “Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer”.
Real democracy in action. No wonder we are a model for the world.
Trump’s chances to win the election remains firmly on netanYahoo aka Benny Mileikowski. If he delivers (war with Iran) that is.
Iran has a sophisticated military and intelligence service. Iran would hit back. They have before:
They could have tied it to billionaire bailouts of corporations and yet they obviously didn’t want it to really succeed because like us they knew damn well it would be vetoed with no where to go after,
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d96d58363cbcf0c0ef6f78a455ee59bb56e916eaba408e3c2742aab16ac41d86.jpg