In a vote of 55-45, the Senate passed the Iran War Powers Resolution on Thursday afternoon, setting out opposition to any unauthorized war with Iran, and instructing the president not to deploy troops for such a war.
Voting was heavily along party lines, with Democrats and some antiwar Republicans managing to pass the resolution in the face of mocking opposition from the Republican leadership, who insisted the resolution could never survive a Trump veto, and was a sign of weakness against Iran.
The Senate Republicans supporting were Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, Todd Young of Indiana, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Trump has opposed the resolution, arguing overwhelming support for his recent hostility toward Iran. Trump has broadly opposed war powers challenges to his wars, arguing he is allowed to launch such conflicts without Congress.
A veto has the potential to be overridden in the House, but it so far looks unlikely that the Senate could do so. That may ultimately depend on growing opposition to the war by the time the override happens.
Irrelevant. If the neocons, CIA, Pentagon hawks or Israel or some other Iran opponent can engineer some sort of incident more serious than the Soliemani assassination, Congress will not stop Trump from starting the war.
Possibly but you can no longer accuse Congress for doing nothing.
I can accuse them of doing nothing which is effective. I can accuse them of not doing enough to roll back the unnecessary US hostility against Iran and the complete lies about the alleged “nuclear weapons program” that doesn’t exist and never did.
I can accuse them of kowtowing to Israel on every single issue except whether *Trump* can start the Iran war.
And make no mistake – this is all they are complaining about – that it is *Trump* who would start the war. Would they do the same if it was Hillary Clinton? Or Joe Biden? Hell, no.
Nothing but beltway theater.
Never get in the way of a war criminal at work.
Do republicans only read the 2nd Amendment or something? Is there some special edition of the constitution that doesn’t have 95% of the document included or something? Maybe they all pass around an Onion Version of the constitution or something. Past 3 years of Republicans claiming the Democrats are traitors…yet 90% of their party votes to pretend the constitution doesn’t exist…
The AUMF never stopped Obama and Bush from starting wars. It’s almost as if Congress is unfamiliar with the War Powers Act.
For hair splitters, when is a war not a war? Regime change? Stopping terrorists (Iran)?
Always thought Iran was a sovereign entity.
This is a game. Democrats are trying to portray themselves as defenders of Constitution, and trying to profit from anti-war mood.. Republicans know it. The democrats voting for this resolution have been given green light by their political and funding minders. It costs them nothing. Playing antiwar card, forcing Republicans to defend the President. Republicans voting with Democrats are known quantity — and Republicans can say now that they are the key to passing this resolution.
But what for? We all know that Democrats are just as rabid instigators of war with Iran. It is for show — election posturing for increasingly gloomy public mood when it comes to endless, undefinable wars. What happens next? Not much.
If ever Congress really steps back from pushing Iran war, it would would happen ONLY if Israel decides that war is no longer in their interest. So, far, I have not seen any evidence of that. In reality, stars are no longer favorably aligned. Regionally, there are no takers, just the opposite.
Provocation have all fallen flat. From the tanker sabotages, to Saudi oil facility bombing. Even the bombing of Iraqi soldiers in Iraq and assassination of Iranian general was contained.
There is zero appetite for war of any magnitude in the region. Gulf states are very vulnerable, and can suffer fatal economic damage even in a small conflict. US must make determination — can US take on Iran, deliver a decisive blow in a manner that no retaliation aimed at Gulf states is possible. But even in that case — any danger to Caspian sea, any chance that weakened Iran would not be able to defend US access to Caspian, would be met with Russian and Chinese reaction. Much to think about.
Because in that case, American mainland would not be secure. As I said, much to think about.
Wonder if the game playing Congress has thought it through.
Or, Bianca, you are completely, and totally wrong in your guess as to why dems brought this bill. Could be, they don’t want trump to further provoke war with Iran without congress mandate. Cause, that is pretty much, exactly what it looks like. What are you looking at ? Down the tracks for the trump peace train ? Maybe put your ear on the track, see if you can hear it.
I wish I were! Democratic establishment is no different than Republican establishment. Their consensus on wars — past and present — is complete. The establishment is bi-partisan, and their hankering for war with Iran is well established. Hillary Clinton, running for Democratic nomination in 2008, suggested quite deliberately — using nuclear weapons on Iran. She was DNC presidential candidate in 2016.
The only thing that changed is the mood of American people.
Trump — running as an outsider — plugged into the mood. De-industrialization, trade imbalances, wars, immigration, lying media. Nobody seriously expected Trump to change the establishment. But he was very promising as a wrecking ball — and he did not disappoint.
The problem we all have is our understanding of change. We would like it to be logical, to be result of a dialogue, battle of ideas. Historically, social change is a traumatic process, with unknown consequences.
Do not blame Trump — he is a product of an American era, and an accidental president. An accident that was waiting to happen. There is no way of telling what happens when elites start squabbling, finger pointing.
There is clear fissure within Republican party. Establishment cannot contain the rejectionist mood of the electorate, and they do not know how to get it back under control.
Same process is germinating in Democratic Party. The fossilized leadership has paralyzed the party, and the new blood is a mix of trendy and superficial. Old guard, like Sanders, is at times unable to get ideas across the ideological divide. He is still struggling with explaining socialism, as if taxpayers are not that mythical society — and that their socialism consists of spending and investing their money on their priorities. Environmentalists, fighters for human rights, — vast array of causes and issues are all part of that germination process.
Not that challenges did not exist before. But the post WWII consensus is breaking down. And the oddities like Trump are part of the change. Money, however, is the substance that fuels the audition we call primaries.
Hope a Democratic Party produces an oddity this time. We desperately need more wrecking balls. We need more conversation about the system that is broken.
you don’t become President by accident.
Indeed. Which is not the same as “accidental” president, someone using the prescribed path, passing through the checkpoints along the way, mimicking the recognizable organism, but out of control. Both parties were shocked with the effect.
I don’t think so. I suspect the elite didn’t really want an outsider but their distrust of Clinton was so large their hand was forced.
Heavens! Whose distrust of Clinton? She was a favorite, and Republicans had a really weak field — it looked almost as if Republicans were resigned. She is the insiders’ insider — the center rung of power. Trump bumbling ways took them all by surprise, and whoever crafted Trump’s key points — was aiming at the electorate, knowing full well that the establishment does mot want to touch those — de-industrialization, globalized trade imbalance, immigration caused by globalization, wars and interventions, regime changes, nation building — and lying media!
To the horror of elite, this rhetoric won. Not accepting it possible, they still blame aliens and Russians for invading Amercan well controlled minds.
if they trusted Clinton, she’d be president.
Trump is their Manchurian Candidate. Every cabinet position he has filled is establishment goons For example who hires John Bolton? and when he was ‘fired’ his position was filled by a Bolton minion.
Anyone who is willing to rely on either party of this totally “bought and paid for” political system deserves the hell they are about to receive.
That’s about the size of it all.
So wrong. The parties are not the same at all. If the gop voted like dems, the first iraq war doesn’t happen, Bush would have been just a part of negotiations to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Sanctions dont happen, troops in Saudi Arabia doesn’t happen, bye bye reason for 9/11. Gulf war 2, the same. Gop votes like dems, it doesn’t happen.
Whenever I see “congress failed”, all you prove is your ignorance of what a legislative branch is, or its role in a shared power government. The Gop (and the voters who put them there) have been the jackbooted war voting bloc in congress since the automobile. Those who disagree, simply aren’t familiar with how to research votes, or basic arithmetic.
Did you forget about Libya, or that Obama – the peace candidate – left office with the US in more wars than when he entered? Which party is it that incessantly shrieks about the Russian danger? The military industrial complex owns both major parties.
I think the system is broken because the people are broken and have lost their way. People get the leaders they deserve. “Vox populi, vox Dei.”
“Trump Peace Train”, LOL. Trump, the ultimate Zionist/Israeli boot licker, Itching for war not only in the middle east, but also south America. https://media0.giphy.com/media/MuTenSRsJ7TQQ/giphy.gif
I wish it is this simple.
Every time he even mentions withdrawing troops from anywhere, a collective groan from Congress, think tanks and media know it alls.
Even if he is just joking.
Let us see how many Congressmen snd senators vote for everything Israel. How many of them are arguing for Iran being our enemy. How many screamed their heads off when Trump tried to calm Korean tensions. How many are hostile to Venezuela and love unelected Guaido? How many are up in arms about menacing China and how many are running around in a frenzy over Russian malign influence? Ir what happened when someone even mentioned pulling troops out of Africa?
All told, there is probably not ONE congressman or senator left without one or more foreign policy pet issues — all without exception arguing for American muscular God given right to straighten out this planet.
And most of them will not be able to tell you where exactly are US troops in Africa.
And I doubt very much that ANY one of them knows where exactly are our troops today in Syria? Exactly. Name towns or villages we are in control off. Some may know of Al-Tanf base, a fifty square kilometers area on Jordan border. But going along Iraqi border, where exactly are US troops. Where are these oil wells, and how many troops are there? Do they care? Or is supporting our troops now defined by contractors’ profits, so any talk of actual withdrawal causes panic. And to calm the fears, we merely reallocate the resupply profit centers.
I know of no person in politics today that is not tarnished by war economy and is its cheerleader.
Trump should sign the legislation. It would piss off his enemies in the CIA and Dept of ‘Defense’.
Can anyone (including Thomas Knapp or other moderators) _please_ explain to me how a President can veto a war powers resolution when he does not have any authority to be in that war in the first place?
Trump also vetoed Congress’s Yemen resolution last year. Why is no one, including members of Congress, challenging Trump on this? Should this not be taken to the Supreme Court in a separation of powers argument/case?
The problem with war powers resolution is that the legislative veto built into it pretty much ended up nixed when SC ruled in Chaida vs INS that the legislature can’t pass bills with that type of legislative veto.
Trump can’t constitutionally start a war, but War Hawks have used twisted and downright retarded reasoning to argue that the framers actually only gave congress the power of the purse and the ability to “Declare War” as a procedure allowing for some wartime status that effected legal things at home, not “Declare War” as in be the ones to decide if and when and with who we go to war. Every framer president/SC justice clearly state otherwise but in the end when the populace refuses to replace leaders that simply break the law time and again there isn’t much to be done. Probably this won’t stop until soldiers start actually reading the constitution and decide to follow it instead of executive orders…which isn’t likely. The anti-federalists weren’t afraid of standing armies for no reason…they knew soldiers followed orders not laws.
The president can veto anything that comes across his desk.
The way for Congress to stop an illegal war isn’t to pass a resolution that the president waging the illegal war can veto. It’s to impeach and remove the president waging the illegal war, or to go to court to have illegal war orders blocked, or to tell him he doesn’t get any more money until the shit stops, or some combination of those things.
You’ve got a real valid point here, Thomas Knapp. Of course, the president can veto any piece of legislation that comes across his desk.
DJT doesn’t want a war with Iran .. that’s why he’s been negotiating with his Iranian counterpart – Hassan Rouhani – behind the scenes, to keep the Trotskyists aka Neocons in the dark. It’s these Trotskyists who really want war with Iran .. They’re getting Secretary of “Defense” Esper to bypass the president and send more US troops to the Middle East to stir up tensions and provoke Iran into a war. They’ve already stirred up negative responses by Iran by pressuring DJT into ordering the assassination of IRGC Commander Qassem Soleimani via drone strike on the vehicle in which he and 9 others were riding. It’s now up to the president to take charge and kick these warmongering Trotskyists out of the White House and tell Congress and the Pentagon there’ll be NO war.
“DJT doesn’t want a war with Iran .. that’s why he’s been negotiating with his Iranian counterpart – Hassan Rouhani – behind the scenes”
You’ve been saying this for months. I’ve searched over and over and can find absolutely nothing to collaborate what you are saying. So either prove it or stop with the BULLSH*T.
“They’ve already stirred up negative responses by Iran by pressuring DJT into ordering the assassination of IRGC Commander Qassem Soleiman”
And yet DJT bragged profusely at his hate fest rallies that he “took out” the general. Hardly sounds like someone that was pressured.
“They’re getting Secretary of “Defense” Esper to bypass the president and send more US troops to the Middle East to stir up tensions and provoke Iran into a war”
Sure.
You’ve searched and can’t find anything to collaborate what she is saying?
Just between us, behind the scene negotiations are not searchable because it’s not the official narrative. So just because you and your origination can’t find anything doesn’t make it not true.
Right It’s been going on for months and absolutely no one knows anything about it. Trump ties his twitter fingers after every secret meeting.
He tells Q.
I think Eileen is getting her information from Q droppings.
I guess it is possible, in another universe, some gop senators might consider that impeach, or veto-proof for such bills, don’t do the constitution any favors.
all of those things would work . accept better not try impeachment again right away . Why not over ride his veto with a bigger majority ?
The president can veto anything that comes across his desk.
The way for Congress to stop an illegal war isn’t to pass a resolution that the president waging the illegal war can veto. It’s to impeach and remove the president waging the illegal war, or to go to court to have illegal war orders blocked, or to tell him he doesn’t get any more money until the shit stops, or some combination of those things.
“The way for Congress to stop an illegal war isn’t to pass a resolution that the president waging the illegal war can veto.”
Congress is worse than Trump and this resolution is non-binding.
Exactly! Congress is acting as if they do not know what needs to be done. They are posturing, so they can say later — see, bad Trump wants wars.
If my memory is correct — every time Trump mentioned withdrawing troops from Syria — a collective scream was heard from Congress. Any time withdrawing of troops is even mentioned from anywhere, Congress immediately goes on record blaming Trump for recklessness .
Now passing resolutions to look good for election season.
And maybe Trump was saying those things to look good for his base, or whoever was in the room with him at that particular time. I mean after all the talk about leaving Syria and then saying you are going to stay to “secure” the oil in that same country?
The president can veto anything that comes across his desk.
The way for Congress to stop an illegal war isn’t to pass a resolution that the president waging the illegal war can veto. It’s to impeach and remove the president waging the illegal war, or to go to court to have illegal war orders blocked, or to tell him he doesn’t get any more money until the shit stops, or some combination of those things.
“President can veto a war powers resolution when he does not have any authority to be in that war in the first place?”
Actually, this resolution is non-binding, whether or not the president vetoes it (I wish he would sign it).
Good idea. But who would bring the suit and what cause of action? Bear in mind that the courts have repeatedly found that members of Congress lack “standing” to sue the executive.
They could likely bring the suit as citizens depending on if citizens can be considered to have standing as it’s their interest to have the Constitutional powers of their Representatives followed as delegated. Not sure if the SC would just try and duck anything under that standard but it seems reasonable given that it’s ultimately the citizenry republic…
I notice 2 Democrats must have voted the war. Who were they?
47 + 8 = 55
53 – 8 = 45
Given Trump will certainly veto the legislation when it gets to him, and Congress will assuredly not override his veto, the headline to this article is misleading and disingenuous. It should have said, “Senate Fails To Pass Iran War Powers Resolution”
If it’s “non-binding” as asserted here, why are they even wasting time pursuing it? If it’s non-binding, Trump could sign it and then ignore the non-binding resolution.
Those who think this is theater are not paying attention. The antiwar faction in congress is attempting to limit the terror authorization since they do not have the votes to repeal it. trumps assasination was conducted under that authorization, which is why, months before, he listed the Republican Guard as a “terrorist entity”. Same with the Yemen vote..
I wonder if GOP apologists on this, antiwar site, even have a clue how to turn US militancy around…..
How many democrats voiced their displeasure over Trump listing the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist entity? Or how many democrats DON’T call Iran a “state sponsor of terror”? Were any of them upset that Trump waxed the general or are they just pissed he didn’t tell them first? And if he did tell them first, would they have objected for any of the right reasons or just that the opposite party is currently in the white house?
The voting trends in congress are obvious, has the gop ( not the odd botkins) ever brought, or voted antiwar ? The arithmetic overwhelmingly shows the warmongers can always count on them, no matter who is in the White House. Now, it is true that dem antiwar votes have been ineffective, whose fault is that ? Do the dems earn shade because the US voters continue to send jackbooted gopmongers to congress over and over again ?
The answer to your question regarding the Revolutionary Guard is this…the terror authorization allows the POTUS to call anyone he wants a terrorist, then drone his house, and that includes you or me
(thanks Obama). The only way to stop it is to repeal the authorization, or, as they are attempting, to limit its scope. If the bill passes, Iranian targets would be exempt from the POTUS terror reach, and he would need authorization from congress.
Seems like the antiwar crowd would be thrilled somebody is trying to do something about US wars, yet, by looks of the standard comments around this site, the dems get cynical shade for their efforts, the jackbooted GOP is ignored.
I just brought up those things to point out that the general attitude towards Iran isn’t much different between the parties. I don’t think any resolution limiting Trumps power to wage war against Iran will mean anything unless we finally admit that they are our equals. And I still believe the “self defense” excuse will allow any president great latitude in ordering attacks damn near anywhere.
“Isn’t much different?”
Look at the vote!
So you think the democrats are pro Iran? They don’t call them “state sponsors of terror”? They didn’t/don’t call the assassinated Iranian general a “monster” or a “terrorist”? Any real pushback against Trump for dropping out of the JCPOA or the sanctions he imposed afterward? Please tell me how they are different other than voting on some useless non binding resolution.
Attitude amongst legislature means nothing, just guessing, or framing what they do to your own bias. Voting is the only reliable measure. The bill is a direct congressional rebuke of the assasination. If you want to find who embraced it it, look to who voted against the bill. Oh look ! Jackbooted gopmongers.
I think it means everything. At least in regard to Iran. As long as they are perceived as our enemy, and a vicious one at that, any legislation that doesn’t address our overall enmity towards them will be basically meaningless. If Trump isn’t allowed to assassinate anyone or attack them militarily, that doesn’t mean our stranglehold on their economy won’t continue with gusto. As soon as those legislators get done voting on that resolution they continue to look at Iran the same way, as a state sponsor of terrorism. Reigning in the presidents power is a good thing but it doesn’t address the overall picture. And please don’t misinterpret anything I say as support for the gop. I hold them in contempt as much as you do.
The iran deal set a course for normalization. Sanctions relief was scheduled for 2/17, after the inspection teams were operating. There is no reason to think that the process was a good thing…until trump.
Dialogue is important, I agree, yet, where is Kucinich, or Ron Paul ? The US voters rejected them.
I observe trump and the gop talk peace, and make war. Dems talk war and vote peace. We remain at war everywhere, that is why I say the votes are worth more than the talk.
“Dems talk war and vote peace.”
I don’t disagree with that, in fact it is kind of my point. Unless their is a full throated opposition to our wars at all times, the votes will hold little value. Look what happened after the Yemen vote. You heard practically nothing more about Yemen. When Trump did his missile attacks on Syria, you heard little opposition other than not being notified. And the opposition that you did hear was prefaced with things like “Assad is a butcher” or “Assad kills his own people”. You can’t be anti-war only when a vote comes up, it’s got to be full time otherwise nothing will change. The votes can’t be to rebuke Trump, they have to be about rebuking war.
There’s 3 elements to this 1st, the key word is “prolonged”. U.S.A. D-r occupational forces are deployed at so many locations on earth, it’s impossible for Congress to know when they murder people, commit acts of war etc. So they obviously don’t care about that as long as it ends quickly. 2nd President Trump murdering people for all we know occurs on a daily basis, Congress doesn’t know either unless a whistleblower tells them about it – see “1st” supra. 3rd, if there was actually a legitimate reason for USA D-r forces to use force, it would be self defense and this is the main problem. No one actually knows what a Declaration of War is. It is not a license to commence an offensive war it is merely a Declaration that another sovereign power has committed acts of war against the USA. Occupying a foreign State IS an act of offensive war. The sole exception is when civil war of an adjoining state spills over into yours and you enter to restore order.
This is just muddied because positivist interpretation of law is looking at the Constitution through the wrong lens. If viewed through a natural law lens then the reference to Congress being delegated the power too “define and punish violations of The Law of Nations” as understood by the frames when the Constitution was implemented. This would place all authority in Congress for such violations of the Law of Nations as other nations supporting assaults on the US outside declared war, as such assaults are violations of The Law of Nations as understood by the framers in their Natural law tradition… Essentially legal positivism disrupted the balance of Constitutional devisions of power.
The power to “define and punish … offenses against the law of nations” isn’t “delegated” it’s a legislative power “vested” to Congress, but it’s not “all authority”: it has to be within the law of nations – which other nations would presumably adhere to, otherwise what would be the point? And/or, if a proper suit were brought and survived then any such law might be struck down or ignored. Personally, I’m no fan of “the war powers resolution”, presumably, that’s what you’re referring to? Obviously, all members of the USA D-r party are “all in” for military occupation of other countries, so anything that comes out of their Congress is going to be a subaltern of their epistemology.
No I’m referring to The Law of Nations in the natural law sense as understood and referred too extensively by Washington’s cabinet during the Neutrality crises and by our first SC chief Justice John Jay… Not the current tendancy to refer to current international law but rather that deduced by natural law as practiced around the time of the founding. As I said the positivist tradition that pushed it the natural law tradition seriously impacts the meaning of define and punish violations of The Law of Nations.
I understand what you’re referring to, but there was always a “positive” law of nations. Treaties for example, don’t change the substantive rights of sovereign nations, they only effect specific relations with each other. How that might effect people in the signatory nations is up to the court of the respective nation – e.g., US Const Art. VI, cl. 2. The War Powers Resolution regards internal relations between Congress and the Executive. Congress might impeach a President for such things, but the USA D-r(s) never will – the example of Ukraine is a perfect example, or the murder of the Iranian General. And even if the law were fashioned in whatever form you pleased, if a President’s beliefs were in conflict with the law and he violated it what’s the worst that could happen? He’d be removed from office – maybe. It’s always been like that.
True the worst that might happen to him would be impeachment, but you could say that about him confiscating every pellet gun in the country… That doesn’t make it Constitutional… Just that the Congress must enforce it. That said it leaves those following the orders that violate the law could be prosecuted, say by a state executive. The only check on violating the law by executives has always and everywhere been the willingness of the governed to check them…
One of the problems with the USA D-r version of gov. is that it evolved into the idea that everything has to be criminal – like impeachment – personally, I favor the use of Public Fiduciary Duty. The problem there is that Congress have unclean hands e.g., they wanted to impeach the President for forestalling lethal aid from the gov of Ukraine to assist in killing it’s citizens residing in the eastern regions who demand autonomy like umm Virginia B-)
As too what it means for authoritative power, b it’s not legislative it’s executive in nature but assigned to Congress as part of the balance of powers, likely written out to them like declaration of war which also is typically executive in nature, but that the framers intended to fall too congress
On the one hand you’re talking about the U.S. Const. and according to that authority, it’s a power of Congress. I don’t have anything against Monarchy, per say, but I don’t think Parliament would agree with you [tic]
Trump Administration Report Shows ‘False’ Justification for Soleimani Killing – Lawmaker.
https://sputniknews.com/world/202002141078316986-trump-administration-report-shows-false-justification-for-soleimani-killing—lawmaker/
Even the New York Times in thursday ed. contradicts the WH claim`s for the reason for the assassination of the Iranian Gen. Soleimani.
Turns out that Israel did`n like the de-escalation talks between Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Israel got their puppets in the US to sabotage the de-escalation talks and stage the assassination.
After the assassination the MSM where on board in the lies, distraction and smear campaign.
The US does not only break treaties and agreements……it also assassinates people who try to de-escalate tensions and work for peace.
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2020/02/14/618645/Soleimani-assassinated-to-sabotage-peace-talks
Update:
Trump Administration Report Shows ‘False’ Justification for Soleimani Killing – Lawmaker
https://sputniknews.com/world/202002141078316986-trump-administration-report-shows-false-justification-for-soleimani-killing—lawmaker/
‘ Dog and pony show ‘…to keep the cattle on line. We have here a two headed-one Party System, like George Carlin said; ” You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. ” I came from Eastern-Europe, where I lived for almost 30 years under Communism/post-Communism…it’s much easy for us ( born there ) to see what’s going on…