In a vote heavily split along party lines, the House of Representatives passed H.Con.Res.83, a War Powers Resolution seeking to limit President Trump’s ability to unilaterally attack Iran without any Congressional authorization, by a vote of 224-194. It also opposed last week’s attack on the Baghdad International Airport, which assassinated Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Though many Republicans argued it was non-binding, analyst Robert Naiman pointed out that under the War Powers Act’s own language, this type of resolution is binding. The concurrent resolution could not be vetoed by the president.
Supporters of the bill noted that Trump carried out the attack without significant Congressional dialogue, let alone authorization. They added that President Trump has shown himself unable to articulate a real strategy for the war.
Opponents argued that it is unconstitutional to question the president’s attack, and Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL) argued that an American is worth 100 Gen. Soleimanis, meaning the death of a single US contractor justified killing many more Iranians. Other opposing reps echoed President Trump’s allegations against Iran, offering no more evidence than he did.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) argued it is a war Americans don’t want and that Congress never authorized, saying the vote was necessary to reassert Congressional authority over war declarations.
In his press conference, Trump pointed to objections by Rand Paul and others regarding the need to see the source of this intelligence, and Trump said that such things MUST be kept secret. Of course. I mean its not as though the Deep State would feed everyone abject lies simply to get them to start a war that would profit them immensely. LOL. What an idiot Trump is, and good for Rand for at least implying the point that the intelligence is likely complete BS.
Sen Mike Lee (R-UT) is also correct on the issue here. Many partisans (read ‘Democrats’) won’t give him credit but he is actually taking a stand. Anyone can take a stand when its is easy and your whole party supports you.
Sheesh, the dems make a right move, you give them shade, and congratulate the lone GOP dissent…talk about “partisan”, look in the mirror.
Yes, the Dems made a right move — and more of them voted against that move than Republicans voted for that move. The numbers were small on both sides, but establish that neither party is a monolith on the subject.
Dems…war 8…no war 220
Gop…war 186…no war 3
Define “monolith”…
“Define ‘monolith.'”
Here would be two clues:
1) Dems: no war 228, war 0
2) GOP: war 189, no war 0
Oh boy, more vocabulary. A “social monolith”, would be intractable, consistent, and homogeneous. In terms of war in the middle east, the gop has certainly been monolithic, as the gop legislature has overwhelmingly (in fact, near unanimously) supported every war resolution since the first gulf war. Note, “unanimous”, is a different word, referring to arithmetic. The War on terror authorization vote denied the dem “monolith” on being against the ME wars.
You might want to look up the meaning of “homogeneous.”
They are “homogeneous” in that they are GOP ( including the minuscule dissent)…their overwhelming voting support for me wars is “monolithic”.
eg….the Catholic church has been monolithic in regards abortion. Over time, structurally, and within the hierarchy. All members are homogeneously Catholic, yet, not all Catholics are against abortion. Maybe look up “social monolith”. unless you are referring that the congress is a huge dense stone.
Dems made the right move because they hated Trump, as they did not voice similar objections to Obama’s unilateral military strikes. So the dissenters should get more kudos for demanding access to the information, or else declaring the action had no basis. Trump is wrongly continuing to run with the defacto unilateral power he has inherited, but his goal appears to be the same “show of strength now, to get to negotiation later” approach he has used elsewhere. The real test will come after he gets from under the gun of the shampeachment, to see whether he ramps up to war with Iran or moves towards true diplomacy.
Yes, both parties only vote against war when it serves their political interests, not because they actually care about the interests of the US.
Another mind reader…perhaps we should abolish the legislative branch, and just hold a seance….sheesh
How do you think Nanc and Chuck really feel about offing the general? That is the problem. The Dems leadership is really in lockstep with the GOP.
Well, I discovered I had no mind reading skills after being married for 24 years. I go by votes….
Congress can pass two kinds of resolutions. A joint resolution has the force of law if it is signed by the president or if two thirds of both houses of Congress vote to override a presidential veto. A concurrent resolution, like the one passed today cannot be vetoed, but it is nonbinding.
It would be nice is the Constitution was actually binding as it was supposed to be.
Increasingly historians are very slowly coming to the conclusion that it is our very US Constitution that has caused so much trouble in this country. Not that this country wasn’t led by greedy sociopaths from the start. However, the Constitution, which was supposed to help “forge a nation” instead allowed for rampant colonialism and then imperialism because it simply did not have any common-sense checks on the powers “delegated” to the federal government. And this last was the very thing that started succession processes in the US beginning in the northeast in and around 1812 and culminated in the War for Southern Independence. Now the same symptoms that were evident before the conflict of 1861 are now once again evident with many Americans at each other’s throats… And most don’t even know why…
No I think we know why .
There were and are actually three sets of constitutional checks on federal power. One being within the federal government (between the branches), the second being the states (originally through the legislatures sending Senators who would vote down abuses), and thirdly through the people (elections). But none of these measures can prevail if the Constitution is disregarded in any case.
The real problem is the weakness of public (aka, sinners) in not protecting the system from abuse, by failing to exercise the checks from either of the three directions. If the Founders had stayed with just a revised Articles of Confederation, the centralizers and imperialists would have no doubt found ways to eventually get around that document as well. Where there is no will to keep the republic, there will be those to have the will to ignore it.
All depends on if and how sc would determine Chadha decision that negated legislative veto in bills applies to congress power to declare war….and likely congresses willingness to impeach for usurpation(Republicans won’t ;(
“A concurrent resolution, like the one passed today cannot be vetoed, but it is nonbinding.”
The Constitution says otherwise: “Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.”
This is something the dems can really latch onto for the 2020 election. Talk about an open door for one of the candidates to take advantage of. And, of course, they could talk-up anti-war in the campaigning and then totally flip once elected, y’all ever seen that before? I think Warren would be the perfect psychopath for the job.
The democrats sure felt different about the terrorist Osama bin Laden
But which Republicans are antiImperialist? Compare Rep Justin Amash vs Representative Brian Mast who is mentioned in the article*. Justin Amash had to switch parites to Independent from Republican. The Old Right was against Imperialism, and Wikipedia lists its modern followers as Paleoconservatives. Iraq was invaded on manufactured lies. Democracy is only a slogan. When is America going to grant Iraq sovereignty or is it going to be perpetual control for the biparty Warfare state? The Imperialist British had the decency to give the Hong Kong Chinese, a 99 year lease. So what is the formula for USA to get out (or they going to creep left and right like they did into ex-Soviet Ukraine?
*Who both are born in 1980.
bin Laden wasn’t a general. General Soleimani wasn’t a terrorist.
Wasn’t there a similar mandate in the horrifically bloated recently passed NDAA which got removed before final version was voted upon? Duopolistic Kabuki theatre yet again.
Traded for domestic spending.
The Daesh Takfiri terrorist group has hailed the recent assassination of Iran’s top military commander, Lt. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, by its “allied” US forces in Iraq, describing the criminal act as a “divine intervention” made by direct order of American President Donald Trump.
Well atleast religious extremists can speak the truth. In regards to allied forces…
This is Pelosi playing games as is Congress. Yes, it’s a non binding resolution nothingburger though at least it creates some national discussion.
Anyone that thinks the Congress is going to withdraw funds, repeal the War Powers Act which actually helps that which it was supposed to repress, or anything else to get us out of the regional quagmire is smoking too much of a recently legalized substance.