Iran

House Schedules Vote To Halt Further Strikes Against Iran Without Congressional Approval

Sens. Mike Lee and Rand Paul declare support for a Senate version.

|

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) announced this afternoon that the House will take up a resolution stopping the White House from engaging in further hostilities against Iran without a vote from Congress.

"Members of Congress have serious, urgent concerns about the Administration's decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward," Pelosi said in a statement announcing the pending vote. "Our concerns were not addressed by the President's insufficient War Powers Act notification and by the Administration's briefing today."

The House will be considering a War Powers Resolution introduced by Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D–Mich.), sent to its Rules Committee tonight. Pelosi will hold a full House vote Thursday.

The resolution is based on one introduced in the Senate by Sen. Tim Kaine (D–Va.). Kaine's resolution reads, in part, "Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, by not later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force." Read the resolution here.

The resolution is intended to make it clear that the current Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) permitting strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan against terrorists connected to Al Qaeda does not permit President Donald Trump to order military strikes against Iran.

It's good to see Congress asserting its authority over the declaration of war. Billy Binion noted this morning that it's not clear that Republicans are interested in restraining President Donald Trump's actions in Iran, so this all may come to naught in the Senate. Trump's speech earlier today suggests that he's not actually interested in pursuing further escalation, and that might be used by his supporters in the Senate to argue the resolution isn't necessary.

But there are some Republican senators coming forward now to support Kaine's resolution. Sens. Mike Lee (R–Utah) and Rand Paul (R–Ky.) emerged from a briefing for senators this afternoon and announced they'd support the War Powers Resolution. Lee even went so far as to say it was "the worst briefing [he's] seen on a military issue" during his time in the Senate. He was reportedly furious:

Pelosi also noted that she is considering other bills to restrain our Middle East involvement, adding, "The House may also soon consider additional legislation on the Floor to keep America safe. This legislation includes Congresswoman Barbara Lee's resolution to repeal the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and Congressman Ro Khanna's legislation to prohibit funding for military action against Iran not authorized by Congress."

Advertisement

NEXT: How San Antonio’s Worst Cops Get Their Jobs Back

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Didn’t they try something like this (about Yemen? I don’t remember) only to have it vetoed? It seems weird that the president can veto a revocation of war powers. On the other hand, does the AUMF sunset? Because if congress were serious about this, they could just let that happen.

    1. Its an bill passed by Congress and he can veto it like any other bill passed by Congress, and Congress override the veto like any other vetoed bill.

      And no, the AUMF does not sunset, but Congress can add a clause or repeal it outright (subject to the same conditions noted above)

      1. But that means the president can indefinitely keep his war powers unless a supermajority of congress disagrees? It would make sense in an actual war, but since AUMF is so vague, that just seems really dangerous.

        1. There is a argument whether war powers can even be constrained against immediate or security threats as it is in the purview of the Executive’s Article II authority. Constitution allows for short term conflicts to reside in the Executive, only long term wars are of the purview of the Legislative.

          1. “The Marines are the President’s troops.”

            Obviously said in a time before NSC-48 and nuclear weapons.

        2. But that means the president can indefinitely keep his war powers unless a supermajority of congress disagrees?

          Well, that was what Congress has chosen. They could easily have made a different choice.

    2. I have argued exactly that: The Congress can check POTUS Trump by repealing the two AUMFs that authorize our presence. That is the constitutional check.

      This is a case where I want the Congress to weigh in. It is one thing to turn a couple of terrorists into red jello. It is quite another to get into a shooting war with another country. Yeah, POTUS Trump has been very, very shrewd in dealing with Iran. He has certainly changed the dynamic to terms more favorable to the US.

      Still though – Congress has to do their job. Debate this openly and honestly. That is exactly what the Founders expected of us.

      Now….that open and honest debate I mentioned above will have to happen in the mornings, because very shortly the afternoons from 1-6 will be taken up with an impeachment trial.

      1. Yeah – I don’t even think it would be a bad thing to toss the Suleimani thing into the Articles of Impeachment and we can have a nice, very public debate about what exactly the AUMF authorizes, what counts as a war zone, when the President is authorized to just unilaterally kill someone, etc.

        But you know they don’t want to have that discussion. Much better to pass a vague resolution and then piss and moan when it gets vetoed, never having to ask the hard questions about what the previous two Presidents were up to.

        1. But you know they don’t want to have that discussion. Much better to pass a vague resolution and then piss and moan when it gets vetoed, never having to ask the hard questions about what the previous two Presidents were up to.

          Exactly.

        2. After all, eventually their Team’s guy will sit in the Oval Office, and absolute power is kind of neat.

          If Congress is that butt-hurt about the preceding few weeks, why not repeal the previous AUMF entirely, and then have a new AUMF that specifies who the Executive can use military force against?

          Whatever this resolution purports to do, it doesn’t do that. I’m not sure Congress has the power to do what the pending Resolution claims they have the power to do. They can direct what they want; I don’t think that means that legally Trump has to listen. Trump can claim the plain text of the AUMFs of 2001 and 2002 allow him the power to order these military actions, despite Congress’s ‘findings’ in the previous section of the Resolution.

          The proper means for Congress to handle this would be to repeal the AUMFs or to cut funding for the military units Trump wants to use. Either would be within Congress’s power.

        3. You know, this might sound antiquated, but I write my Congressman. I tell him exactly what I think, and why. Seriously, I do. My attitude is, why not write to him? I vote.

          Now, I will tell you. My congressman is one of those couple dozen Team D congressmen in districts that POTUS Trump won. I bet he is listening. 🙂

          1. That’s mighty noble of you. I have heard that letters count for a lot, in fact – they assume each letter represents something like ten people, nine of whom didn’t write.

            This is my Congress critter. I don’t write.

            1. Wow…I hope he survives his leukemia. I’d leave Congress and focus on that. Or maybe tough it out through a third term and get lifetime medical coverage. I mean, I get politics and all that…but shit, that guy is fighting a battle for his life.

              I see you live in the People’s Republic of CA. I ‘book-end’ you as I live in the People’s Republic of NJ.

              This is my congresscritter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Kim_(politician)

      2. “Still though – Congress has to do their job. Debate this openly and honestly.”

        I have a lovely bridge you might be interested in, if you’re in the market.

    3. Few bills have sunset provisions. The AUMF is not one of them.

      Some folks think this lack of sunset provisions in our laws is a major contributor to legislative and legal dysfunction.

      1. Sunset every bill at 5 years.
        Would be a worthy amendment

        1. I could go for that.

        2. I could go for that too.

        3. I’d also limit size of bills, something like 1 8.5″×11″ piece of paper, 10 point font, double sided.
          That’s like… 1,000 words tops?
          Yea, word/character limit would be better

          1. And plain language in common usage. And no vague rules that allows the Executive branch to write regulations unless subsequently approved by the legislative branch. Stop shirking their duties as legislature by passing it on to the Executive branch.

        4. Agreed. Unless it’s a constitutional amendment it should automatically sunset after a short period and require subsequent renewal. No more unending federal laws.

        5. Do you have any idea what that would mean? There is no way Congress could review and repass all the bills passed in the entire history of the US.

          But I guess that’s why you like the idea, it would be a backdoor way to get rid of basically everything.

          1. No. Congress would just omnibus the renewal of everything. Look at how much scrutiny they give to Bill’s now.

            1. I would agree to ending Omnibus as part of the amendments.

        6. Instead of a sunset provision, I’d use success criteria. If the bill doesn’t meet the objectives it is supposed to accomplish for a one year period it automatically expires.

  2. What about the pen and phone?

    1. I blame the obstructionist Republican Congress. Both sides are equally bad but when it comes to healthcare, immigration, war with Iran… the GOP is clearly more badder.

  3. The resolution is intended to make it clear that the current Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) permitting strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan against terrorists connected to Al Qaeda does not permit President Donald Trump to order military strikes against Iran.

    But if he wants to take a whack at Libya, that’ll be OK?

    1. That was then; this is now. Heh heh. 🙂

      All kidding aside, I would like the Congress to discuss and debate this. This is not over. Our representatives should be talking about this. Why? Because sooner or later, Iran won’t miss and our people will get killed. We’ve had and on and off undeclared coldish war with Iran for 40+ years, with a two year detour 2015-17. I feel this discussion and debate is in keeping with what the Constitution demands of us.

      Although, given the state of our politics, it is probably crazy to think people can step back and put aside their animosities.

      1. I agree, but not just for this president. Had the AUMF had a sunset or renewal requirement written into it 19 years ago, this wouldn’t be an issue.

        1. Yes exactly, Unicorn. If the Congress had really taken the time to think through and put a renewal requirement, our history would be much different, I suspect.

      2. I feel this discussion and debate is in keeping with what the Constitution demands of us.

        I don’t disagree except in the larger context as you put it above. I think the FF would’ve wanted Congress to check the President’s power in such action but I remain unconvinced that they would want the Congress that tried a SCOTUS nominee for getting turned into a toad 30+ yrs. ago and trying impeach the President for quid pro quo to be the ones checking that power. I think they’d see it for the farce it is every bit as much as we do.

        1. but, didn’t Trump turn Adam Schiff into a newt?

          Wasn’t Clinton impeached for turning Gingrich into a Newt

    2. Assuming a veto to any attempt to limit or repeal the AUMF, then “that’ll be OK” to anything that doesn’t tick-off a super-majority of congress.

      So yeah, taking a whack at Libya is probably ok. And so is taking a whack at Iran.

  4. Poor House of Representatives.

    All dressed up like the whores that they are with no US Senate to cooperate.

    1. You can’t expect those high-class escorts in the Senate to associate with those common streetwalkers in the House.

      1. Why are you insulting honest sex workers?

  5. So Trump has to stop within 30 days after they pass this resolution, which itself will take a while to pass? Seems like we’ll have forgotten about Iran by then.

    1. So Trump has to stop within 30 days after they pass this resolution

      To me it is unclear what it is he is supposed to “stop” doing. We have to withdraw all of our troops from Iran? We have to stop striking targets in Iran? We have to make sure Iranians in Iraq come to no harm?

      Or is the sense that if Iran attacks us, we’re not supposed to retaliate?

      What is it they are actually demanding be done, here?

      1. Nothing, which I think is exactly the point. Only once this kind of resolution has no meaning whatsoever will they pass it.

      2. That is kind of where I am. Scratching my head. Wondering WTF is this legislation telling the POTUS he can or cannot do? Of course, I think POTUS Trump will veto this, and the veto will be sustained.

      3. To me it is unclear what it is he is supposed to “stop” doing.

        Exactly. You understand the resolution perfectly.

        All they want is for Trump to tell them ahead of time what he plans on doing and that way they can stop him from doing it. The resolution is necessarily vague because, while they are certain they’re going to be against it, they don’t actually yet know what it is that Trump will be proposing.

      4. Assuming it passed with a veto-proof majority (big assumption, I know), it would limit the president’s ability to start a war, or to carry out more airstrikes similar to last week’s.

        If Iran started a war, it gets murkier what options would be on the table, but defensive actions would almost certainly be permitted. Retalitory actions? Maybe not. But I suspect if Iran were going whole-hog, it’d be a “beg forgiveness” not “ask permission” scenario.

        The biggest bit is that while it may not be perfectly clear on what is/isn’t allowed (which isn’t surprising, given the lack of accurate crystal balls), it does say “we have the votes, cross this line and we’ll yank your chain”, which is a pretty strong message regarding whether or not he can take action without consequence. Imagine, for example, getting such a veto-proof bill on his desk, while the impeachment hearing is over his head. Violating it would have consequences.

        Of course, that’s all if they can make it veto-proof. That’s far less likely then merely passing it.

        1. it does say “we have the votes, cross this line and we’ll yank your chain”

          That makes sense. A sort of gauge of Congress’ resolve.

      5. All good questions. It seems to be poorly worded to address something that isn’t actually happening so they can claim to have done something. But repealing the AUMF would be an actual meaningful act.

      6. We don’t have any troops in Iran

  6. It’s good to see Congress asserting its authority over the declaration of war.

    What declaration of war? If Iran’s killing our men doesn’t put us at war how can killing one of theirs do so?

    Why do Reason writers insist on writing about their fantasies?

    1. Well they’re not shooting clay-pigeons over there so —- lets try not to confuse the definition of “war” to suite an agenda.

  7. Congress takes T’s Nintendo.

    1. Better than taking his joystick I suppose.

  8. Trump should have said they were after the head of Hezbollah and Solemio just happened to be there.

    1. I know, I know. ‘Square = Circle’ made the same point. Just bad luck for Soleimani that he got turned into red jello visiting his friend to exchange Chelo-Kabab recipes. 🙂

    2. He had to take credit because of his massive ego

  9. Rand Paul acting like a Libertarian! NO, can’t be!

    1. He plays at one for about 10 days out of the year before he goes back to what he does best: sniffing Dear Leader’s throne.

  10. “Members of Congress have serious, urgent concerns about the Administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward,” Pelosi said

    Pelosi shouldn’t be criticizing anybody for a lack of strategy while she’s still got that impeachment rotting in her purse.

    1. Good point – that’s some pretty thin glass she’s standing behind while she hurls that stone.

      1. Hey now, she had to leave a restaurant grand opening early last night. She sacrifices too.

    2. Notice she’s pretty specific about her complaint, she’s not opposed to Presidents being able to engage in hostilities without consulting with Congress as to their goals and strategies as a general principle, just this specific President in this specific case. See, Presidents we trust should be granted greater powers than Presidents we don’t trust. This new-found “respect” for the Constitution is entirely situational, which means it’s no respect for the Constitution at all except insofar as it’s a blunt instrument with which to whack your opponent.

      1. Yea, but you’re not supposed to say that part out loud

      2. I agree. Its horseshit she is narrowly crafting this bill to only block trump from attacking iran. I also think it has no chance of passing.

        However, congress finding their balls when it comes to issues of war and peace would be nice. You wouldn’t know it from reading this comment section, but most americans are not interested in more war. Having their representatives vote on it would be an improvement from the status quo.

        1. “You wouldn’t know it from reading this comment section, but most americans are not interested in more war.”

          Because so many here are totes clamoring for war…

  11. “The resolution is based on one introduced in the Senate by Sen. Tim Kaine (D–Va.). Kaine’s resolution reads, in part, “Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, by not later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force.” Read the resolution here.”

    This is literally psychotic.
    US armed forces are not engaged in hostilities with the Iranian government or its forces.
    Are we counting Kataib Hezbollah?
    If we are, do soldiers have a right of self defense?
    How is such a resolution in any way applicable?

    1. Nardz….I totally hear you. But listen, they (Congress) need to start somewhere. Think of it as a shitty first draft that will get somewhat improved over time. Regardless, POTUS Trump will veto it, and the veto will be sustained.

      Sadly, this debate can only happen 9-12, since the afternoon hours of 1-6 will be taken up with an impeachment trial. You know, the trial that cannot begin because the House has yet to transmit the articles to the Senate.

    2. Who?

  12. Not not necessarily against the idea behind this and would like Congress to take back more control over military operations. But from a geopolitical standpoint with Iran at the moment, is this really the best time to be potentially knee-capping the ability of the president to respond to attacks on US forces in the region?

    1. If you are a Democrat or a traitor (but I repeat myself) it is!

    2. When would be a “good time”?

      No matter what time is chosen to limit the executive’s warmongering ability, the War Party will always say “not now! look at all the baddies out there!”

      1. Says the guy cheering on Iran to escalate even more because he didn’t get the WW3 he was hoping for last night.

        1. You really are a despicable person.

          1. “You really are a despicable person.”

            Yeah, right Jeff. If you weren’t the hypocrite you are, that might mean something.

            1. He’s as dishonest as they come.

      2. Or you can be Obama, and only have “kinetic military actions”.

        Apparently those require no Congressional oversight.

      3. Or maybe at a time that wasn’t literally right after Iran launched numerous missiles at our military base? Just saying.

    3. When exactly is a good time? Let me guess… when a Democrat is back in office.

      1. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
        January.8.2020 at 10:44 pm
        “When exactly is a good time? Let me guess… when a Democrat is back in office.”

        Yeah, like 1950?
        I’m guessing your ‘education’ was government schools, end-to-end, and that, once you were ‘educated’ by that miserable warehousing, why, that was all you needed.
        Your self-righteous bluster and bullshit tell the story, scumbag. Pay your mortgage and leave the adults alone.

  13. Does this only apply to terrorists? I’d be upset if the President lost the ability to murderdrone American citizens on a whim.

  14. Funny that they did nothing when Obama was killing hundreds with drone attacks.

    1. Because it’s all theater. Neither party is seriously interested in stopping the warfare state. They’re both part of the War Party and just take turns pushing the buttons on the murderdrone controllers.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist
        January.8.2020 at 7:16 pm
        “Because it’s all theater….”

        That’s when Jeff is asked about limitations on Obo’s war crimes. Strange how it flips and flops, Jeff.

        1. His life is theatre. And he’s the clown.

  15. He killed an enemy combatant in Iraq who just happened to also be in the Iranian military. I’m not defending or condemning the specific action, I’m just saying that I wouldn’t necessarily categorize it as a military action against the country of Iran.

    And is congress just blustering because they assume Trump will veto this, or do they really want the responsibility for such things? If Trump comes to them with a proposed military action in the future do they really want to have to make the decision that they could take a lot for by denying?

    From a politically strategic standpoint, Trump might actually want to put those decisions on Congress so he can say I told you so no matter what goes wrong as a result of their decisions. And there will always be ramifications to be criticized, or at least spun into criticism.

    1. It lost the “military action against Iran” when this guy started meddling elsewhere in the region. If he kept his influence limited to Iran’s borders he’d still be alive right now.

      You don’t get to lead/fund/supply militias in half a dozen countries and then fall back on “but but I’m an Iranian General!” when the chickens (or Hellfires) come home to roost.

  16. Reason….TDS CARETAKERS OF REWRITING THE CONSTITUTION. Never heard any call for this when Obama was dropping drone rockets without Congressional approval. You punks are frauds.

    1. Or killing Ghaddafi – an actual leader of a sovereign country.

      Everyone – and by that I mean the media and Democrats – are full of shit.

      1. is

        At this point it’s wishful thinking to get muh edit button right?

    2. Don’t Trust the Government on Drones
      Obama’s targeted killings set a dangerous precedent.

      https://reason.com/2013/02/17/drone-trust-the-government/

      1. Nice recall… I too remember the absolute fucking obsession Reason’s comment board had on NATO’s mission in Libya. How many Americans died during that campaign? Probably like 10 million or so given the attention it was given.

        1. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
          January.8.2020 at 10:47 pm
          “Nice recall… I too remember the absolute fucking obsession Reason’s comment board had on NATO’s mission in Libya. How many Americans died during that campaign? Probably like 10 million or so given the attention it was given.”

          You’re cite fell off, scumbag, but we know you love wars started by lefty piece of shit like you.
          Stephens was murdered in 2012 as a result of that POS liar in the WH at the time and that equally scummy hag, collecting bribes and supposedly acting as SoS; got any ‘NATO Missions’ regarding that disaster?
          Oh, and what a wonderful Eden they delivered:
          “Migrants from west Africa being ‘sold in Libyan slave markets’”
          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/10/libya-public-slave-auctions-un-migration
          Being a lefty piece of shit, I’m sure you love both wars and slavery!
          Pay your mortgage and fuck off.

    3. Obama’s Defense on Drones: He’s Not Dick Cheney
      True. Cheney didn’t pretend he was transparent and not authoritarian.

      https://reason.com/2013/03/14/obamas-defense-on-drones-hes-not-dick-ch/

    4. Obama Administration Working on Drone War Transparency… By Offering Numbers of People Killed
      Don’t hold your breath on the government identifying who they’re actually killing-often they don’t know

      https://reason.com/2016/03/08/obama-administration-working-on-drone-wa/

      You can do your own searching on Obama’s use of drones. Just use the search function at the toolbar on the top. It’s easy if you try.

      1. The Trump-loving Republicans, including the slightly libertarian-leaning ones masquerading as actual libertarians that pervade this comment section, always assume anyone making any criticism of their god emperor is a) A far-left progressive, and b) absolutely worshiped Obama and never faulted a single decision he ever made. They can’t conceive of someone not picking a party, declaring their absolute every decision Right and Just, and defending every last action of the leader. Total anathema.

        1. Show me the article written by REASON questioning the Constitutional Authority of Obama’s drones and Hillary supported asasination of Ghadafi. Not criticism, but literally claiming it was Constitutionally illegal.

          It is not about Trump..it is separation of powers that can and will affect every party going forward. Wake the F up. TDS is destroying the whole concept the Federal Govt. was founded on. Essentially the Speaker of the House is the President if things continue..Great..Orange man Bad..but it will apply to the next Dem President if Republicans control the house..

          Get it? It is not party driven.

      2. “You can do your own searching on Obama’s use of drones. Just use the search function at the toolbar on the top. It’s easy if you try.”

        You’d be less of a fucking lefty ignoramus if you ever addressed the question at issue.
        It’s easy if you’re not a fucking lefty ignoramus.

  17. The Jacksonian blood is heated in the comments now isn’t it.

    1. You’d be less of a fucking lefty ignoramus if you ever addressed the question at issue.
      It’s easy if you’re not a fucking lefty ignoramus.
      Seems there’s support for this concept, but some real questions regarding the timing.
      But that sort of clearly obvious differentiation is irelevant to TDS victims.

      1. I like cranky old San Franciscans. Believe me, I do. But you’ve got to get some new material.

        Can you recall for me the exact date you began to question LBJ’s bullshit lies in Vietnam? I’m an amateur historian and I’m wondering when the especially credulous began to have second thoughts. 1985, maybe?

        1. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
          January.8.2020 at 10:51 pm
          “I like cranky old San Franciscans….”

          I despise fucking lefty ignoramuses. Can you recall when you last acted like an adult, you pathetic piece of shit?

        2. Oh, and can you recall for me the exact date when your bullshit claim of me supporting anything to do with Vietnam caused the voices in your head to contribute to your fantasy?
          I’m an amateur historian and I’m wondering when your pathetic fantasy affected your ability to think. Perhaps it was about the time you decided that your commitment to pay your bills was just something you could ignore?
          Tell us you fucking commie scumbag, we really want to know.

  18. Vetoing a restraint on war would be an impeachable offense in my opinion.

    Subject to the same supermajority…

  19. After a half-century of letting the President wage war whenever he’s in the mood, all of a sudden some members of Congress want to reclaim their Constitutional responsibility? Good luck with that.

  20. I have no problem with Congress asserting its authority in this instance.

  21. No chance of being passed.

    Congress long ago abrigated its responsibility to conduct foreign policy and no congress critter has the balls to take it back. Voting against the MIC means less funds from the MIC to your district and no xongresscritter is willing to give up that lucre just to do their constitutional duty.

    Its way way easier for a congresscritter to accept the funds and then feign protest when the wars they tacitly accept go wrong and become unpopular.

    It the best of both worlds for the feckless congress critter. He gets to have his constituents both accept the money and can claim he is either for or against the war, depending on its popularity.

    1. “xongresscritter”

      Now this, I like.
      Guessing it was a typo based on your subsequent usage, but “xongresscritter” has a nice “xe/xir” vibe in this time of Global Socialist party that pretend to be either Ds or Rs, yet seem confused as to disagreement on most fundamental issues

      1. Glad you like it, even thoigh you spent last night calling me a progtard.

        Xongrisscritter is a fitting name for those shapeshifting morons that run the U.S. legislature.

        1. I owe you an apology and without excuse, hereby apologize for my comments last night.

          1. /fist bumbs sevo

            Dont forget war is bad bub.

            1. THX; mea culpa.
              But you won’t find me supporting war, but grudgingly.
              War is the friend of the state; WWII may have been necessary, but it was and is at least as inimical to personal freedoms as any of FDR’s ‘economic recovery’ programs.

        2. “Glad you like it, even thoigh you spent last night calling me a progtard.”

          Nope.
          Not once.
          I said you were shallow thinking and spouting dogma like a NPC style stooge.
          There’s some overlap with progressives there, but I didn’t call you one.
          Feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken

          1. And also, an obvious sockpuppet. Considering it’s one of my old names.

    2. “abrigated”

      Abrogated.

  22. Good.

    What’s sad is it took *this* to make that happen.

  23. The resolution is intended to make it clear that the current Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) permitting strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan against terrorists connected to Al Qaeda does not permit President Donald Trump to order military strikes against Iran.

    But that is not true. The AUMF *does* authorize the President to attack Iran. The AUMF is so broadly written that Obama used it to go and attack ISIS – which DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE AUMF WAS WRITTEN. But this is what you get when you delegate broadly and with no expiration.

    1. Didn’t he use it for Libya too?
      To bomb a national government actively cooperating against al Qaeda

  24. Let’s see, 1950 to 2020; only 70 years!
    And W H Taft would be pleased, while H S Truman would be pissed.
    It’s certainly true that modern military technology probably requires some ability for rapid response, but hoping that Congress debate that and arrive at a well-crafted proposal is a fool’s game.
    (rubbing chin, looking above the horizon to the middle distance) Prediction:
    New regulation: “Trump can’t bomb Iranians without Pelosi’s approval”. That should do it!

    1. Hunh? Sorry, I don’t speak senile crank.

      1. “Hunh? Sorry, I don’t speak senile crank.”

        Not willing to translate to commie-scumbag, so you’ll just have to remain ignorant, as you constantly prove to be.
        Pay your mortgage and fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

      2. Well none of us speak Pedophile Screech so you and kruggy are just gonna have to do the best you can.

  25. Off topic:
    Just got a “Payment Advice” from (supposedly) “Citi-Singapore”; good fake of Citi’s logo.
    I currently have no business dealings with anyone, nor any relatives there, but if I click the link, ‘they’ will transfer >US$20K to my bank!
    The Nigerian Prince has moved! And the scam has lowered the amount to some random 6-digits, I guess in the hopes that those who just fell off the turnip truck will be fooled by the paltry number.
    Prediction: Those who believe in free shit will soon be asking for REGULATIONS!

  26. Do we really need Congress to posture again?

    They’re not going to actually have an effect. And they know it. Why bother?

    Just bloviate to CNN and save us all the idiocy.

    1. I know, right? Let’s just leave things to Dear Leader. He will keep us safe.

      1. Do you ever actually address what people say rather than what you think they said?

  27. Positive Politics today!!!
    +5 for Democrats who are supporting the intent of the Constitution.
    +5 for Trump who has publicly stated he will not pursue more.
    +5 for Senate Republicans actually standing for the principle of the matter instead of just partisan lines…

    Rarely do I find a story that makes D.C. politics sounds not so bad.

  28. A Proposed Amendment To The Constitution

    Excerpt from the novel, Retribution Fever:

    No military action against a foreign power shall be undertaken without a formal Declaration of War except in an emergency declared in writing by the President; in which case, the Congress shall approve by a more than two-thirds majority of each Chamber said military action within thirty days by issuing a formal Declaration of War, or said action shall cease immediately. Neither any sort of Congressional Resolution nor Executive Order shall constitute a Declaration of War or fulfill this provision.

    Unless the Congress has issued a formal Declaration of War, no embargoes or sanctions shall be issued against any foreign power or entity; items of direct military value excepted.

  29. Big Man needs a war to prove to the world that he’s still a Big Man. Why do Mike Lee and Rand Paul hate Big Man? Think of the Big Man!

    1. Brandy, you’re sad and unintelligent.
      Nothing you say is insightful, and a lot of it is flat out stupid.
      Your comments should be censored, based on your own proposed standards

  30. On the merits…. Absolutely the president should 100% seek a declaration of war from congress before going to war. Not even this stupid war powers act stuff. Do it in advance.

    Bush did. But it was poorly worded because his opponents were in a trap – they did’t want to support Bush, but they didn’t want to seem weak or fail to support the troops and/or the victims. So they wrote a cop-out AUMF that would get them out of having to take responsibility for a complex situation going forward.

    But that’s not really what we are talking about here. What they are proposing is a law that would say “you cannot take any military actions with respect to Iran without coming to us first!”

    Well, that’s a loser, strategically. That takes a whole bunch of cards off of the table with Iran. Suddenly, they have free rein to do anything short of enough to justify a vote for war from Adam Schiff, who might vote to have his mother crucified if it would harm Trump politically. He has to have at least some leeway to conduct foreign policy, including responding to fluid situations in Iraq. Iran has forces inside US occupied territory, after all.

    Better to have Trump actually go to congress without that law. And probably better to have no US presence in Iraq… except I think that would mean partition of Iraq or outright control for Iran, something we rather strongly object to….. which might eventually lead to an actual shooting war with Iran.

    Such a mess. Too bad “the people” seem incapable of electing people who will work together in good faith.

Please to post comments