Senate Passes Bill Stopping Further Military Action Against Iran Without Approval

Eight Republicans join the vote, but that's not enough to overrule a likely veto.

With the support of eight Republicans, the Senate today passed a bill forbidding President Donald Trump (or really, any president) from taking further military action against Iran without the expressed permission of Congress.

By a vote of 55-45, the Senate approved a resolution by Sen. Tim Kaine (D–Virginia) that states Congress did not authorize military actions against Iran when it passed Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) legislation in 2001 and 2002. That AUMF allowed the president to invade Iraq and also to hunt down al-Qaeda and those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. The resolution orders the president to "remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military" within 30 days of the resolution passing.

The bill was pushed forward after Trump authorized the drone-strike assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Though the administration claimed that the strike was necessary to prevent an "imminent" attack against Americans in the Middle East, there was little to support this claim, and a couple of Republican senators, including Rand Paul (Ky.) and Mike Lee (Utah), were upset by the unapproved actions. They announced plans to cross the aisle and join Democrats to pass the resolution.

In the end, the resolution got the support of not just Lee and Paul, but also Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Todd Young (Ind.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), and Bill Cassidy (La.).

The bill heads now to the House, which passed a similar, but non-binding resolution. If the House signs on to the Senate version (which seems very likely), it will head to Trump's desk.

Despite saying regularly he'd like to see less military intervention in the Middle East, Trump is signaling that he opposes this bill. Yesterday on Twitter, Trump called on Republicans to vote it down, claiming it would "show weakness" to restrain his war powers. The bill is likely to face a veto, and if this vote is any indication, the Senate lacks enough Republican votes to overrule him.

Nevertheless, at least some Republicans are taking seriously Congress's role in declaring war.

Comments

[jcw]

Sad to see Romney back to his "extremely conservative" ways. Curious to hear what his grandchildren think of him allowing megalomaniac past, present and future presidents to decide who lives or dies.

[John]

Obama is not President anymore dude. Let it go.

[Wearenotperfect]

I probably disapprove of Obama's presidency as much as you do but your constant sucking at the current presidential power teat is pathetic!

[Last of the Shitlords]

We get it, you hate Trump. So then, what’s your alternative?

[Sman]

Take as much power away from the presidency as possible so that it doesn't matter who is president seems like a good option.

[Nardz]

Meanwhile, in the real world, maybe we can think up ways to decrease the power of government... instead of simply kneecapping Trump so progressives in the administrative state have freer rein

[Last of the Shitlords]

That wasn’t what I was asking. He hates Trump, but thought Obama sucked.... allegedly. Who the fuck can we realistically replace Trump with who will be better?

[Sevo]

"I probably disapprove of Obama’s presidency as much as you do but your constant sucking at the current presidential power teat is pathetic!"

Of course you do, but for some reason, you sort of forgot about it when he was POTUS and you were sucking his asshole.

[Wearenotperfect]

Typical Sevo, always quick with the witty reply. So unoriginal, not cool!

[Last of the Shitlords]

You progs don’t give us much to work with in the way of originality.

[Chipper Morning Wood]

aaaand I am back to hating Romney. I don't see his name on this list, because he is a warmongering cunt. Where is your conscience now, Mitt?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

It's almost like his impeachment vote was meant to get the media asspats he craves, and no one in the media gives a shit about this law.

What conscience?

[JesseAz]

You should be more angry that you're so gullible. Literally everyone told you romney was a political opportunist and nothing more.

[Idle Hands]

Good it's embarrassing it took this long. Fucking hacks.

[SQRLSY One]

Well yeah, agreed! But Trump will veto it!

Next on the hit parade: Senate passes new law, says, "The USA Constitution means what it says, and Trump is NOT a dictator"!

But this new Senate-passed law will NOT be passed with veto-proof numbers! Trump will veto it... And the Constitution will be null and void! The Trumptatorship will be CONFIRMED!!!

And JesseSPAZ (and others) will dance and rejoice in the streets!

[TrickyVic (old school)]

What president wouldn't veto it?

[Idle Hands]

I wouldn't think so hard about the screed above.

[SQRLSY One]

An humble one who didn't fancy Himself or Herself as a Supreme-Ruler/Dictator! How far back would we have to go to find one? I've not a clue, truth be told... Harry Turtledove, writer of alternate histories, might have some hints for us...

I nominate Jesus Christ! But Christ would NEVER have gotten close to the office of the POTUS; not with a ten-light-years-long pole!

[JesseAz]

WaPo nor Atlantic would ever endorse Christ, so you'd end up hating them.

[SQRLSY One]

You know who would NEVER endorse Christ?

Trump the Father, JesseSPAZ the Son (Who Has Come Back To Us At Last!), and The Holy Republican Church!

[Idle Hands]

Wow whatta a novel take. Maybe Congress should grow a pair a defund the military till the president passes it. The horror!

[Mother's lament]

If Trump doesn't veto it, Shackford and Sqrlsy are going to be absolutely devestated.

[SQRLSY One]

I'm absolutely devestated, devested, disvested, disinfected, defrocked, inspected, neglected, detected, and molested enough already, at the slightest HINT of the idea that the Trumptatorship does NOT Love Me More Deeply and Dearly Than I can EVAH know! TELL ME IT'S NOT TRUE!!!

Scienfoology Song… GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

Government loves me, This I know,
For the Government tells me so,
Little ones to GAWD belong,
We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!

GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
And gives me all that I might need!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!

DEA, CIA, KGB,
Our protectors, they will be,
FBI, TSA, and FDA,
With us, astride us, in every way!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!

[Last of the Shitlords]

You come off as a bigger idiot than normal when you soak that shit.

[Last of the Shitlords]

Stupid squirrelly cunt. Trump repeals thousands of federal regulations, thereby REDUCING executive power...... it he’s a ‘tyrant’

You’re too stupid to live. Do one good thing in your life, and end it.

[loveconstitution1789]

Senate's Iran resolution has a special operations problem

[Gray_Jay]

We're admitting the Activity exists these days? Which was primarily what the author was complaining about in your cited article. Even so, aren't those classified as non-military forces, like the things SAD gets up to, and thus wouldn't be within the purview of this Senate Resolution?

Unless the author is claiming that the US is currently running something similar to an ODA or two in Iran proper, which seems really unlikely.

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

This kinda shit wouldn't be necessary if Congress wasn't a bunch of cowards and actually did their fucking jobs when it comes to war. They abdicated their responsibilities with the AUMF and now they're whining about the results.

[Wearenotperfect]

"They abdicated their responsibilities"

Yeah, because they probably assumed there would never be a whiny fourth grade bully bitch in the Oval Office.

[Kevin Smith]

Who the hell do you think was in office when the passed the AUMF in the first place?

[Jerryskids]

Well, to be fair, things were a lot different back in 1964 when Congress decided they really didn't want to get involved in war-making decisions.

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

No, they did it because if they had to vote on whether or not to go to war, people might record those votes and talk about it during their reelection campaigns.

They wanted a lot of war, they just didn't want to have to say that on record. AUMF gives them all the cover they need, now when we get in endless wars it's the Executive's fault.

Notice none of this was a problem during Obama's pen and phone drone strike extravaganza. It only became a problem once Orange Man started doing it.

They're cowards, and dishonest to boot.

[loveconstitution1789]

Yup. unreason is here to carry water as the Propaganda arm.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Notice none of this was a problem during Obama’s pen and phone drone strike extravaganza.

Wait, you mean Congress didn't have a fit when Obama was bombing Libya without their approval? Oh wait, they did.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/how-obama-ignored-congress-and-misled-america-on-war-in-libya/262299/

From the Atlantic, no less.

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

Any legislation come out of that, or just a lot of pissing and moaning to the media?

[JesseAz]

You missed the both sides equivocating.

[Sevo]

"Yeah, because they probably assumed there would never be a whiny fourth grade bully bitch in the Oval Office.Yeah, because they probably assumed there would never be a whiny fourth grade bully bitch in the Oval Office."

Fortunately, she (and you, loser) lost.

[Longtobefree]

Excellent. This will damn near balance the federal budget if allowed to become law.

Iran is the largest exporter of terrorism in the world. So they might attack anywhere in the world. So in order to comply with this directive, Trump will have to disband the entire military.

No defense spending means we can now afford Bernie.

[Kevin Smith]

Congress did not authorize military actions against Iran when it passed Authorization for Use of Military Force

But it did authorize military action in the Philippines, Georgia, Libya, Yemen, Djibouti, Niger, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Syria, and Somalia? Face it, you wrote the executive a blank check and now your pissed that its being cashed. Congress should repeal the entire AUMF

[Leo Kovalensky II]

Can't argue that AUMF should be repealed. It never should have been passed without both a sunset clause and clear objectives in the first place.

But I don't see how limiting the AUMF application to individual countries like Iran is a bad thing, short of full repeal. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[Kevin Smith]

I feel like now Congress is just going to sit back, content that they "did something," and we are going to have to wait for our military to be deployed to another 12 countries before there is the political will change things again (and then they will just take that next 12th country off the table, rather than passing a real change)

[Leo Kovalensky II]

I can't imagine too many Presidents would be willing to give up this power. So essentially you'll need a 2/3 majority from the opposition party in both houses to repeal the AUMF.

In other words, not gonna happen.

[Square = Circle]

And the standard is now "if we don't specifically pass a bill saying you're not allowed to attack country X, it's all good."

It's like qualified immunity for overseas military actions.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""But I don’t see how limiting the AUMF application to individual countries like Iran is a bad thing,""

Like Iran do mean countries that are already involved in proxy wars with us?

So let's the military strikes an ISIS site in Syria and it kills Iranians. Does that mean the President violated the limiting AUMF?

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Like Iran, do you mean countries that are already involved in proxy wars with us?

If we donate to Reason will they finally put in an edit button?

[Nardz]

"But I don’t see how limiting the AUMF application to individual countries like Iran is a bad thing, short of full repeal. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good."

Probably because you're an exceedingly shallow thinker.
All this bill does is send the message to Iran (specifically) that the US has no fucking clue what we're doing, and no ability to think beyond superficial, partisan, and short term consequences.
But please, let us all know what good you think comes out of this

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So we'd be sending the message that the United States does not function according to the singular will of a unitary dictator?

[JesseAz]

Well that's an idiotic take.

[Sevo]

From an idiot lefty.

[Leo Kovalensky II]

I don't know, you could ask the Founders why they thought that Congress and not the President should declare war. This is a small step in limiting the President's power and should be applauded.

[Nardz]

I mean... I say you're a shallow thinker and that's what you come back with?
Lol.
That's a pretty piss poor attempt to dodge, but at least you don't dispute the assertion.
But maybe you can make up for it:
What operations, currently conducted or planned, will this bill address/stop?
Please describe in what way this bill is anything other than "virtue" signaling.
And maybe propose how you think hostilities should be dealt with if they occur.

[Leo Kovalensky II]

The answer is none. We aren't currently at war with Iran, but you know that's not what this is about. Even if the motivation is TDS or whatever you think it is, that doesn't mean the results wouldn't be preferable.

But there have been escalations on both sides. It's fine for Congress to preempt any potential strikes that might later tie their hands into war. Just think what might have happened had Iran killed Americans in their airstrike.

Would I rather they repeal the AUMF? Sure. But they didn't. That's no reason to say that narrowing its scope even just a little isn't a good thing.

[Nardz]

And you see no potential issues with a law that says this one specific country requires congressional approval to deal with?
Especially considering that specific country's hostile actions

[Leo Kovalensky II]

No. We should have laws that ALL countries require congressional approval to airstrike. It is, after all, an act of war, no?

If those strikes are truly defensive in nature and warranted then Congress could do it immediately. As bad as the 2001 AUMF was written, it was enacted swiftly and almost unanimously. We declared war on Japan on Dec 8.

[Nardz]

The way you shunning reality, history, evidence, etc in favor of your fantasies is... it's something

[darkflame]

yeah, as long as there isn't any politics in play. Looking at the current congress... the democrats would let us take hits just to spite Trump.

[mad.casual]

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

How about letting the perfect be the enemy of the vacuous signalling and not-very-good?

Or not considering anything remotely near perfect and just objectively noting that this bill is not very good? How about that?

[Leo Kovalensky II]

What specifically is not good about it?

Suppose Hillary were in office. Wouldn't you want to limit her power?

[mad.casual]

What specifically is not good about it?

It's not a real or legitimate restriction of his power. It's shot through with holes that the AUMF specifically provided as work-arounds to the original WPA. A band-aid on top of a sucking chest wound is not nothing but that doesn't make it a good band-aid. Especially when it's on top of the dressing that had failed to protect the wound.

Suppose Hillary were in office. Wouldn’t you want to limit her power?

I wouldn't believe that this bill, in any serious way, limited her power because it's a bad bill. Part of Hillary's campaign was openly devoted to putting more boots on the ground in Turkey. If her administration or the democrats in Congress put this bill up in lieu of more boots on the ground in Turkey, would you make that horse trade?

[mad.casual]

There is no other indication about a larger rollback of the AUMF moreover, this law will essentially cement the AUMF's repeal of the WPA. Congress won't have simply made a mistake that needs to be repealed. It will become a thought out policy with carefully crafted exceptions. There will never be a broad, "We should repeal the AUMF." going forward, there will be a proliferation of tit-for-tat post hoc legislation of who the President can and can't go to war with, with or without permission. Which the President will either effectively ignore or, when he does approach Congress, he will seek blanket approval to circumvent.

It's not fixing a/the law that has been broken, it's just dissolving/diffusing it further.

[JesseAz]

Because you and others decry incrementalism all the time.

[JesseAz]

I did enjoy how this is the first time Reason has propped up incrementalism. Usually they resort to the perfect solution fallacy as Ken pointed out the other day. AUMF should be repealed in total, not merely for Obama's favored nations.

Likewise how quick are Democrats going to cry impeach if troops engage in a retaliatory engagement in the Iran proxy wars now.

[loveconstitution1789]

U.S. Navy Intercepts Illegal Iranian Arms Ship in Arabian Sea

Would this seizure have been illegal under this new law?

[loveconstitution1789]

I would think it's great if Trump signs this law and pulls all troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and ME.

He can then blame any attack on Americans by Iranians operating outside Iran on Congress as they tied his hands as Commander in Chief.

Fucking cowards in Congress didnt repeal the entire AUMF.

[Leo Kovalensky II]

How is this bill tying his hands more than a full repeal of AUMF would?

If you're against the AUMF, you should be for this bill... period.

[loveconstitution1789]

Nope. This is a political move to make America less safe. It ties the President's hands and all the bad guys know it.

Congress is not serious which is why they are not repealing the AUMF. This is TDS because Trump fights back and droned some bad guys.

I look forward to the article where Iran gave the USA casus belli with Iran when they shot fucking missiles from Iran into Iraq at US troops.

It's a shame that unreason is so biased and has no credibility that any position its takes is 9/10 wrong for America.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""This is a political move to make America less safe.""

The first part is right. They are not look past Trump to consider the second part.

[Leo Kovalensky II]

If Trump wants to get us ensnarled in Iran then he can go to Congress and ask permission. You say it ties his hands, I say good! I wish they'd tie his hands some more and repeal the whole AUMF.

[JesseAz]

Thos isnt about ground wars leo. It is about retaliatory strikes in active war zones such as Soleimani.

[Jerryskids]

With the support of eight Republicans, the Senate today passed a bill forbidding President Donald Trump (or really, any president) from taking further military action against Iran without the expressed permission of Congress.

Unless that "or really, any president" includes Obama, you're never going to see the end of the AUMF. It's like the qualified immunity thing for the cops, you let the last one get away with it so you have to let the present one get away with it as well. The AUMF covers the ones that did 9/11 and anybody connected to them and anybody connected to the ones connected to the 9/11 ones and anybody connected to the ones connected to the ones connected to the ones that did 9/11. Iran fits in there somewhere, just repeal the damn AUMF on the grounds that it's been an entire generation and most of the jihadists over there were about 3 years old at the time and didn't have a damn thing to do with it. Declare victory and go home already.

[Kevin Smith]

And it explicitly grants the President the sole power to determine who is connected to who, so all he had to do was assert that Soleimani was somehow involved and its de facto authorized

[Syd Henderson]

Obama's not going to take any further action against Iran either.

[loveconstitution1789]

With the support of eight Republicans, the Senate today passed a bill forbidding President Donald Trump (or really, any president) from taking further military action against Iran without the expressed permission of Congress.

Look how cute Shackford is with bipartisan support for Congressional actions.

I forget, was there some House action that has zero bipartisan support?

[Jerryskids]

OT: The penny dropped on the US government deep mistrust of Huawei supplying communications hardware - turns out the CIA had a major role in running the Swiss company that's been making encryption devices for governments world-wide for years.

'Our reputation is in tatters,' sighs one political journalist. 'Our neutrality is a hypocrisy,' writes another.

In fact the dodgy dealings of Crypto AG were rumoured for years. Crypto's Swiss employees suspected something was wrong.

The Swiss government knew all along: it was one of the only governments which received a Crypto machine the CIA had not tampered with. But having the whole sorry story plastered across the world's media is painful.

It reminds the Swiss of an image they have been trying hard to rid themselves of; that they will do anything for the right price.

[Metazoan]

So the AUMF has no sunset? Talk about a terrible decision.

[Fats of Fury]

What earlier military action against Iran are they talking about. General Pencil Neck was bombed in Iraq.

[awildseaking]

Only the delusional writers at Reason could possibly believe that the only remaining RINOs, plus the one semi-principled R senator (Lee, but he's inconsistent) voting against Trump on anything is a principled stand and recognition of Congressional authority to wage war.

That aside, commander in chief does not and should not need Congress to respond to acts of war in the moment.

[Rossami]

Law question:
Why does the President get a veto on this? The Constitution grants sole authority to declare war to Congress. Declarations of War are not laws. Why are they using the lawmaking processes? It seems to me that when Congress declares war, the process is done. The only way the President could "veto" the war would be to not send troop.

I'll grant that un-declaring war traditionally requires a peace treaty and that the President plays a key role in treaties. But un-declaring war without a treaty doesn't seem entirely out of bounds - and doing so would seem to also be entirely within Congress' prerogatives.

[JesseAz]

AUMF was a military action agreement passed by congress and signed by the president.

Ironically this probably has no bearing on future like Soleimani strikes as the president is allowed to act in a brief manner for national security reasons. This has generally been held to within 60 days prior to requiring a declaration of war. Of iran attacks a government building, such as an embassy, then Trump could still order defensive responses even sans AUMF.

[SQRLSY One]

"Why does the President get a veto on this? The Constitution grants sole authority to declare war to Congress."

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Sad to say, Congress (with a 51% vote for passage) signs war powers over to the POTUS. Then, when Congress wants to RECLAIM what power was granted to Congress BY THE USA CONSTITUTION (Which JesseSPAZ and Trumpistas have NO respect for), then the POTUS can VETO it if Congress can't get 66% veto-proof passage!!! ... What we have, then, is a one-way ratchet (just like in ancient Rome, turning from a Republic into an Imperial Dictatorship), always centralizing power towards the Central Trumptorship... If the electorate changes, then the Trumptatorship turns to a Socialist Dictatorship, the way things are going. I'd like to less LESS centralized Government Almighty powers, but am NOT holding my breath!

[Leo Kovalensky II]

Honestly speaking, Congress shouldn't be able to sign it's powers over to either branch with a simple majority. Amend the Constitution if you want to change the separation of powers.

It shows a clear disdain for the people and the states when a contract they've signed on to can be effectively changed without their consent. That's why they get a say in the amendment process.

[Curly4]

This if it becomes law would prevent Trump or whoever is president in 2021 from attacking Iran even if Iran made a across the Chanel attack on US forces. He would have to go to congress and get an declaration of war just to respond to Iran's attack. This bill if it becomes law will encourage Iran to be more hostile. So the senate should include the removal of US forces from that part of the middle east.

[Nardz]

Bingo

[Titus PUllo]

And then you have Reason not even mentioning how Google/YouTube just censored Rand Paul's free speech. I just don't get Reason..they seem to be in bed with the wokes int he Bay Area who are trashing the Bill of Rights to be "fair" and protect "marginal" groups...what bs. And I don't want to hear "they are a private company" albeit with special privileges. The reality is Google/FC and Twitter have access to capital to ensure they can expand and buy out their competition or preclude entry because they have special privileges on Fed money which a libertarian or conservative start up never could. You Tube needs to be licensed to operate ONLY if they allow all speech even "Hate speech". Its called liberty.

[Echospinner]

License to operate.

So libertarian that.

[mad.casual]

License to operate.

So libertarian that.

Funny thing is, they've been given virtually every license to operate and *still* manage to be less libertarian than the licensing itself.

[Sevo]

"...or really, any president..."

We'll see how long that lasts next time I D holds office.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

I have no problem with this resolution but does it prohibit military action against Iran anywhere on the planet and including Iranian surrogates? I know Trump authorized a drone strike in Iraq against an Iranian among others thereby starting WW3. But I wasn't aware that he'd used military force against Iran.

[Echospinner]

MQ-9 reaper drone flown from unnamed US base against a top Iranian commander and others is not “military force”?

Sure as hellfire is. Not to say the bastard did not deserve it.

[JSinAZ]

Nope, droning an Iranian operative in Iraq is not “action against Iran”. That shithead could have stayed in Iran, as he was required to before Obama’s defunct Iran “deal”. When Trump said the US was no longer bound by that non-treaty, shithead should have understood that ROI in Iraq had changed to include previously announced targets.

Shithead didn’t know the difference between a treaty obligation and a passing, obsolete Obama presidential whim, which evaporated Jan 2017. Droning ensued, which was not an attack on Iran even if it was an attack on an Iranian.

[JSinAZ]

ROE not ROI.

[Echospinner]

Droning is the term now for blowing people into bloody dust. So much nicer.

Not at all military when the military does it.

Once again don’t know if the bastard deserved it or right in any moral sense or strategy. Probably did. My view is get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. End the mistakes there.

[JSinAZ]

“ Droning is the term now for blowing people into bloody dust. So much nicer.”

Not really, anymore than “being shot” is nicer than describing high velocity exit wounds in evocative terms.

“Not at all military when the military does it”.

What? It matters where it happened, it really doesn’t matter which US institution did it.

[mad.casual]

MQ-9 reaper drone flown from unnamed US base against a top Iranian commander and others is not “military force”?

This is the core stupidity of the bill. The drone launched from a US base to attack approved targets in a country the US is occupying.

Iran is, to both their and Trump's benefit, trying to be incidental. Congress drafting legislation specifically designating approved action one way or the other is superfluous idiocy. Does the bill say anything about Hezbollah? How about providing military support to Saudi Arabia to attack Iranian interests in Yemen? If not, why? If so, why doesn't it say anything about getting the fuck out the whole region unequivocally?

[gocogeb832]

Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot…Start here>??

.............. Read more

[TJJ2000]

Here's the problem...
"The resolution orders the president to "remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military" within 30 days of the resolution passing."

Trump has already publicly stated he'd sign a repeal of the AUMF.. But this ISN'T a repeal of the presidential war power. This is but a resolution with an attached and UN-RELATED "rider" section demanding the president withdrawal (obviously leaving that power with the president).

If congress does pass it without any more b.s. "riders" leeching onto it; I don't think Trump should veto it because it's a specific congressional order of the military - but the whole 'resolution' instead of repeal of the AUMF really makes this nothing but a sh#t-show.

[RachelKGraham]

Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details….Read MoRe

[Lieber Terry Anne]

Either this bill was completely unnecessary, or it is unconstitutional, just like the War Powers Act is...

[MasterThief]

They could just repeal the AUMF
Still, this is a good thing. Next up we see whether Trump signs it. I don't think that is as unlikely as the writer does

[RoseCSellers]

Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot......Read MoRe

[tlapp]

That train left the station long ago. We've not had a declaration of war passed since WWII. The precedent long ago became the standard.

[Jerry B.]

Wonder how long it'll be before we see... "Well, we had American troops in a dangerous situation, but since the Congress won't let me act without their approval, and they were all home on a break, lives were lost. Sad."

[Moderation4ever]

The first question everyone of those 45 Senator should be asked in an interview, at town halls, during campaign stops is this; "Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war. Why will you not uphold this section of the Constitution?" It is Congress's job and if Representative or Senator doesn't want to vote on war, then they don't really want the job.

[TJJ2000]

+1000; Well said...

[Moderation4ever]

Thanks for the support. I know that you and I have disagreed in the past it is good to know there are things we can agree upon.

[jomo]

I see that all of our resident "originalists" here are, predictably, aghast at the idea that Congress should retain its Constitutionally-mandated war powers as opposed to vesting all power solely in the hands of the executive.

Proving once again that their "originalism" is wholly opportunistic, party-based, and has literally nothing to do with the text.

[Moderation4ever]

Agreed

[Natural Born Deplorable]

I see that you are another clueless poster. The War Powers Act was vetoed by Nixon and overridden by a Democrat controlled congress. The Constitution states "declare war," not make war.

Another ultracrepidarian bellowing on the internet regarding matters he knows nothing about.

[SusanLMejia]

Want To Work From Home Without Selling Anything? No Experience Needed, Weekly Payments... Join Exclusive Group Of People That Cracked The Code Of Financial Freedom! Learn More details Good luck...... Read more