The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted down an amendment to the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would declare NATO’s Article 5, which outlines mutual defense commitments, does not override congressional war powers.
The amendment, introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), states: “It is the sense of Congress that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty does not supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war before the United States engages in war.”
The amendment failed in a vote of 16-83 and received no support from Democrats. “It should have been an easy vote to affirm the Constitution, to vote against affirming the Constitution actually places doubt in the Constitution. But it was defeated,” Paul wrote on Twitter after the vote.
The Senate also approved an amendment introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) that requires Senate approval for a president to leave NATO in a vote of 65-28, with only Republicans opposing the measure.
The Kaine amendment reads: “The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty… except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.”
Versions of the Kaine and Paul amendments were previously introduced as stand-alone bills. When Paul and several other Republicans introduced legislation to reaffirm congressional war powers over NATO commitments, he noted that while NATO members are required to assist each other in the event of an attack, military action is not mandated.
“Furthermore, Article 11 of the NATO Treaty states that the provisions of the Treaty are to be carried out in accordance with each country’s respective constitutional processes,” Paul said in a statement last month.
Once the Senate passes its version of the NDAA, it needs to negotiate the finalized version with the House. Both versions will allocate $886 billion for military spending, but a partisan battle is expected to ensue as Republicans added amendments to the House version relating to social issues in the military, including abortion, transgender surgeries, and diversity policies. The House passed its version of the NDAA last Friday in a narrow vote of 219-210.
They overwhelmingly refuse to endorse the Constitution.
And they aren’t even ashamed of themselves.
Congress reminds me of the little banking figure in a monopoly with empty hands saying What can I do?
The parasites are in control in Washington. Nothing really surprising here. The imperial governance supersede national interests.
Rand Paul – the lone voice of sanity in the senate. Washington warned us against foreign entanglements. And yet today’s Washington DC is filled with hawks who got us into the largest war entanglement ever – NATO, and refused to affirm the clear language of the Constitution that only Congress can declare wars. What would Washington think?….
He probably would barf all over his wooden teeth.
Why would U mention his “wooden teeth”??? WTF!
ALL the votes in favor were Republicans – 16 of them.
NO Dems voted for it.
Again the Dems are the LEADING Party of War.
Including the “progressives.”
As the amendment would seriously put the credibility of NATO in doubt it is hardly surprising that it did not get the votes needed to pass.
If you are against war then NATO has actually been more efficient than most alliances at keeping its members from being attacked. NATO has as an alliance between very powerful nations actually also been at the center of remarkably few aggressive actions against non NATO countries.
Undermining the credibility of NATO would therefore only increase the risk of war while doing absolutely nothing to curb the aggressive policies of any of its members.
With a few minor exceptions like Afganistan,Korea,Viet Nam and Iraq.
I know that NATO was very much involved in Afghanistan after the 9/11 article 5 was invoked and NATO was involved in the occupation of Afghanistan, but did NATO attack Korea, Vietnam or Iraq???
NATO also took over parts of the air operation in Libya in 2011 if you want a more complete list.
The existence of NATO allows member nations to be more aggressive, as they may feel that their defense is assured. Having a solid defense in reserve, they can take on wars that they would otherwise avoid as too risky and wasteful of their strength.
It also allows pipsqueak nations in NATO to “threaten” way outside their punching power … watch “the Mouse that Roared” for an illustration and warning.
Compared to the Baltics, Grand Fenwick was a nation of foreign policy geniuses.
This is likely true – being in NATO did allow e.g. Denmark to participate in the Gulf war – which our defense situation would otherwise not have allowed. Though these aggressive actions have provided a steep learning curve for most of these nations – showing them that they could achieve very little in such foreign adventures – so it mostly applied to the 1991 to 2011 situation, incidentally also the period where Russia was the least of a threat.
Also true – being in NATO has allowed these nations to speak the truth as they see it rather than cower in fear – a good reason for being in NATO.
“If you are against war then NATO has actually been more efficient than most alliances at keeping its members from being attacked.”
NATO members haven’t been in danger of attack since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It should have been disbanded when the Warsaw Pact dissolved.
But no. NATO has survived, expanded and become more aggressive, belligerent and reckless. Today, it is NATO itself that places members at greatest risk of attack.
Fairly absurd claim given that the SMO proves that the Russians are quite capable of attacking other countries.
Not as any of its members sees it, I can guarantee you that e.g. the Baltic countries are sure that they would have been attacked if they had not been in NATO.
“If you are against war then NATO has actually been more efficient than most alliances at keeping its members from being attacked.”
What NATO countries have been threatened and by what countries since the Soviet Union dissolved?
The poster frequently vomits this stuff up.
If they had not been in NATO e.g. the Baltics are pretty sure that one or more of them would have had a SMO on their territory – why do you think that Russia could not invade a neighbor? It did so to Ukraine and Georgia.
Pure crap.
As Scarlett O Hara said War War War I am so tired of war. Now one of the last remaining obstacles to making war has been removed. The Constitution as written many year age has always been a guideline. Now with a right wing court SCOTUS and a bunch of judges appointed by a sociopath it is not worth the parchment on which it was written. There is a cold dangerous wing blowing thru America and its mostly peaceloving citizens.
Like the Declaration, the Constitution has never been anything but a petit bourgeois self-delusion and big bourgeois fraud. Congress critters hue to the needs and dreams of their sponsors; L aw is the least of their concerns as regards their own vs The People.
“The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.” Joe Sobran
Joe Sobran, RIP.
Throw them to the mob.
The mob would have been a greater danger to them if they had supported the Constitution over NATO. The mob would have torn them to pieces, chanting Death to Putinbots!
“The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty… except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,”
the president shall not even denounce NATO without senate approval.
LOL you couldn’t even create a fictional government for a stupid movie that is as ridiculous as our current government
I was thinking the same … Not even “denounce”? Does this mean a president would get impeached if he went around talking against NATO and how it should be ended?
This may be congress exceeding their constitutional authority here …
I wonder if “denouncing” will be grounds for impeachment.
maybe it should be a hanging offense like treason is supposed to be
War’s the way things are going Russia is going to answer the USA arrogance and war making with a nuclear solution, and then all the DC GHOULS that survive will face an enraged , what is left, citizenry, just as Mussolini did. Remember Saddam’s fate……deal with it MOFU’s!
Did they abolish the 1st Amendment as well?
The DC GHOULS’s already did, where were U? Only now a judge may have reasserted it….
And any President can take us to war without a declaration of war from the Congress. What’s wrong with this picture?
Totally wrong and also nullifies the position of all who voted against the resolution. Red line has been crossed! 🙁
“Senate Rejects Congressional War Powers Over NATO’s Article 5 An amendment to the NDAA declaring that NATO’s Article 5 does not override congressional war powers failed in a vote of 16-83”
NATO is a failed organization looking for legitimacy. NATO meetings look more like a clown show!
Agreed. Last time I checked, you see clown shows at the circus. LOL
It may be a clown show; but it’s OUR clown show is I think what they’re saying …
its all part of the UN, time to shut down the un
“Both versions will allocate $886 billion for military spending”
Whew! /S
Yeah. I’m sure Raytheon was on pins and needles.
Roar as the Lion!
What else is new when it comes to the power of the war hawks to override our Constitution? One way or another Americans are passengers on a slaw motion train wreck with a direct confrontation with the Russia over our latest quagmire.
And Russia may solve the problem, when forced to by the DC GHOULS, with 6 well placed Nukes…….game over.
Lol…! It is Not the North Atlantic Treaty…. It is the the unilateral US Treaty…!
The MIC owns more than 60% of the votes in the Senate, a permanent majority.
Prez. Dwight and George W. warned this nation and it’s leaders of certain dangers that were fatal, the weaklings and corrupt of DC have ignored those warnings, and we as voters stood for it,,we and they will pay a terrible price for that!
🤡🌎
More research needed. Based on this post, the amendment only conveyed “the sense of the Senate”. It didn’t actually authorize NATO’s Article 5 to override the Constitution.
I have the impression that the Constitution is protected without this amendment, and that it would only come into play if a Court case occurs in the future.
I nonetheless hold that the President already has too much wiggle room to conduct wars without Congressional approval. The definition of war needs to be overhauled. For example, should not the intentional use of USAID to promulgate regime change in Ukraine, Syria, Georgia, and other countries be considered an act of war? Is it OK to get around the Constitution by calling a war a “police action”? Is it OK to ask Congress to approve a “war on terror”, which would essentially give the President a blank check?
We claim to be a nation that operates under the rule of law. But the executive branch of government has gotten very good at doing whatever it wants to do by blurring the lines that define what is prohibited or required.
I agree. It was not clear. But one thing is clear, the constitution is under attack and if not, it would be ignored.
Interesting article on the constitution:
https://mronline.org/2023/07/12/sober-up-liberals-the-u-s-constitution-sucks/
Sober Up Liberals: The U.S. Constitution Sucks! LOL. I agree. Talking about that, I have been seeing more funny video clips like this, I wonder if true: https://youtu.be/ctV-fUcW3_Y
Ha!
It does NOT “sucks”, it is an amazing document. Think U can do better,,let us hear it!
I agree. We were just playing. Well, at least I was. From my view, the liberals have more problems with the amendments, like cancelling free speech and gun ownership. …Yes, they’re against the amendments. LOL
An arrogant Executive Branch,a do nothing worthless Congress and a right wing fascistically inclined SCOTUS. What could and will go wrong?
U are wrong, SCOTUS must never legislate! The SCOTUS is the only institution left that can save the USA from imminent destruction.
(Article II, section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ”the supreme Law of the Land.”
True.
And all that Article 5 of the NATO treaty requires if a party state is attacked is for other party states to do … whatever they happen to feel like doing … about it.
Whether the United States decides to go to war over it is, constitutionally, already up to Congress if they would EXERCISE that power instead of just whining when a president does whatever he wants.
You are suggesting that a treaty could be used to override the Constitution itself. I don’t think so, and I assume that, at minimum, such a decision would have to be made by the US Supreme Court.
That said, Article 5 does not compel NATO countries to go to war. Each country continues to exercise their own discretion.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/natos-article-5-collective-defense-obligations-explained
Read the part of the CONSTITUTION I posted. I didn’t “suggest” anything.
Treaties only become law for the parties to the treaties.
And no treaty can alter (for the US) the provisions of the Constitution. Obviously.
“wiggle room”? How droll.
Are declarations better than stern letters?
How about stern declarations?
Do they trump the other two?
Let the tail wag the dog…!!!!!!
By next Nov. elections it is likely that the irrational policies of both parties will smack the nation right in the face. They illegally sanction more than 30 nations, friends and foes alike, declared war on Germany, an ally, when they sabotaged the pipeline, they weaponized the banking system, anything they think will do damage. They have undermined the credibility of international institutions, including the UN. We are being governed by a bipartisan bunch of avaricious Zombies. No mature mind in sight as far as the eyes can see.
USA “on an express elevator to hell”,,PERIOD!! Get ready..
You said it!!!
NATO should more concentrate on Articles 1 and 2 before implementing Article 5. It could prevent a lot of wars and misery in the world.
Well this isn’t hard to understand. After all, DC is being run by Nazis.
Yes, Constitution is at stake — but what is not in question is this gargantuan budget that ensrines corruption as a model of governance, Thus NATO forever! It does not matter that a nation that is rapidly increasing today the current budget deficit — votes mindlessly to spend and keep the biggest corruption scheme going.
US is destroying dollar, an internationalized system of payments that could have remained the staple of intenationsl trade and reserve currency.
For all the massive war budget US is losing its footing in the world since it weaponized dollar and institutions of international trade, such as SWIFT. Dollar demise will be slow at first. And as Heminway said — then all of a sudden. The world economy will suffer too, but it is a poor consolation. All the bullets, missiles and new military toys cannot make the world fund our prosperity.
All these toys are a delusion, belief that we can break resistance around the globe, bend them to our will and mak them neekly work for us.
Using some of that money to develop self reliance and become leaders in peace, not war — is the only way to go.
But it cannit happen for as long as military-industrial-congressional complex sucks out all of taxpayers wealth to generate wealth to those that recycle that wealth into staying in power.
“All these toys are a delusion, belief that we can break resistance around the globe, bend them to our will and make them meekly work for us.”…
After Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere how can the DC cretins still believe that they can control the world? I don’t get it.
Fascism now runs USA not the constitution.
Tim Kaine (Douhebag WV) is an extra vile piece of work. He sounded like a rabid antiwar warrior when Trump was President.
Yes, when Kaine debated Pence in the 2016 Vice Presidential debates it was Pence who came off as the war monger, and Kaine came off as more sensible. How the worm has turned.
It’s really difficult to take these continuing “is it Constitutional?” discussions seriously. Why do we keep kidding ourselves?
“I call the present system ‘Post-Constitutional America.’ As I sometimes put it, the U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.”
Joseph Sobran
Anybody surprised? One’s reminded of Eisenhower’s farewell speech and how prescient it was.
He warned famously of the MIC threat of acquiring undue power and the it’s danger to our liberties and democratic processes. He also warned of the risk to free scientific discovery were university research to become more a function of government funding than of intellectual curiosity – and the corollary that “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Statesmanship, he advised, was required to mold, balance and integrate these forces within our democratic system.
And don’t you know, as fate would have it, it dealt us the triple-blow of threats realized while Postmodernism did with statesmanship what it did with truth – relegate it to antiquity.
Yes, Virginia, that is how we got to the verge of WW3 (and male pregnancy 🙂
It’s too bad that Eisenhower didn’t take steps to scale back the MIC while he was in office.
The original draft names MIC AND Congress! IKE also wanted to do away with the CIA.
Ike deserves credit, he directly involved himself along with his brother Milton, in crafting this address, making some say, as many as a dozen rewrites. He obviously dealt with deep concern about these issues.
We can only wish he had not spent much of his administration allowing the conditions he warned us of to develop.
I suspect that the conditions developed long before the Eisenhower administration.
Then it may be said that Ike did not limit them but enhanced them both policy wise and budget wise.
Not a god, only a president. Back then, we didn’t have a war powers act to allow a president to stick his foot in it and the dare Congress to say no.
This said, we did have the CIA coup in Iran, and sympathy for the French following Dien Ben Phu 😉
I vote Ike as least bad of the post WWII presidents.
I continue to maintain we could have had Taft were the nomination not stolen from him and the nation would be better off for it. Taft was painted as an isolationist which is a nonsense term and he wasn’t.
Yeah, I guess we’ve always had the Napoleon disease. WWII gave us the wherewithal to implement it.
It really doesn’t make any difference… NATO and Congress both want wars…!
A Red line has now been crossed! Purge the Traitors and DC Ghouls!! 🙁