Now all we need is Fetterman, the mentally unwell, unfit to serve quasi-republican who supports action in Iran to sign off on it.
I thought he was a quasi-modo
Uh huh and I’m sure drumpf the child-rapist will certainly do what they say this time.
Fuck you, you already gave him all the power he wants to just do whatever the hell he pleases. He’ll just ignore this resolution and start calling the Guardians of Pedophiles who flipped a bunch of schoolyard bully names, browbeating their spineless asses back in line…
Clinton ignored the War Powers Resolution during the 1999 NATO bombing campaign. He ignored the Resolution’s 60-day limit without formal congressional authorisation and ignored the fact congress voted against the declaration of war. The subsequent Campbell v. Clinton case had the federal appeals court ultimately dismiss the lawsuit, ruling that members of Congress lacked the legal standing to sue the President over his war-making actions, neutering the War Powers Resolution.
So yeah prepare for this to mean nothing.
So it’s a strongly worded letter.
I’m not about the adjective ‘strongly’. That might come in a few months after the first letter is ignored.
trump will veto it anyway
idk.
I think there’s a good chance that he wants an off-ramp and will make a huge show of respecting the will of the legislature in the process of backing out of the war.
anything is possible - copium doesn’t work with this one though
Wdym copium?
They’re saying you’re being way too optimistic.
basically, in jurassic park dr ian malcom voice: “trump finds a way”
oh, I was just contemplating a different possibility of how things might unfold. I don’t have so much of an investment in which is which, whatever happens with this particular issue. I’m not American or Iranian.
I do agree it will somehow turn out in his favour. I would prefer that he just fucks off instead.
Don’t be too hopeful.
The roll call Wednesday was 215-208, but next steps are uncertain. Trump would likely reject any measure from Congress to limit his commander-in-chief authority. Still, the tally, with four Republicans joining Democrats, was a rebuke of the president’s war strategy, and cheers erupted in the House chamber.
So much for checks and balances when the president can just “reject” Congress limiting his power.
This isn’t anything new or specific to Trump. He can veto this like any other measure and the veto can be overriden With a 2/3 majority vote in Congress. That’s how it’s always worked.
The way it’s always worked is the president can’t unilaterally declare war. Let’s not pretend we are still bound by precedent or rules anymore.
Is this the first time a president did war shit without approval?
Takes 51% to allow the prez to declare war or 67% to stop the prez from unilaterally declaring war? Dumb.
That’s how it’s always worked
…since 1983 when the supreme court decided the legislative branch did not have the power to veto the president. Even when congress was the one to delegate the power in the first place.
See: Immigration and Naturalization Service V. Chadha
@ChonkyOwlbear makes a very good point: the idea that the burden is on Congress to disapprove of the war and that Trump can veto their disapproval is completely ass-backwards, if you really think about it, and its absurd that the media and/or general public is treating it as anything remotely resembling business as usual.
(This isn’t meant to be a criticism of @Andronyx individually, BTW. I can’t blame them for falling for the same logical sleight of hand as almost everybody else.)
Its the Constitution limiting his power. Legally, congress has the power to declare a war. We’ve just been ignoring that as a society for a while.
The Vietnam conflict was decades long. Comment checks out
If you ain’t paying politicians your vote means nothing
This guy never heard of the Trail of Tears.
It’s all moot anyway. If the rules worked he wouldn’t be able to continue anyway without congressional approval.
If the rules worked he would be in jail instead of the Whitehouse.
I absolutely guarantee you the rules would work perfectly for a democratic president.
Yes, Democrats do tend to vote for people who follow the law. You’re right about that
Even a baby step in the right direction is a step AND the right direction.
Better than no step at all.
Exactly as written in the Constitution, right?
“The President can start wars unilaterally and Congress has to pass legislation to stop them.”
It doesn’t say the FUCKING OPPOSITE, does it?
Fucking clown shoes.
This is needed for all the 0 negotiation BS between reopening somewhere between any day in last 2 months and labour day, and just letting Israel supremacists derail any reopening of SoH.
The republicans didnt grow a spine. The loser want out and needs a scapegoat to explain running away from a war he started.
The midterms will be the litmus test. If there’s a strong rebuke of republican rule, look for them to move toward ditching tRump. That’s my prediction.
Assuming we have untampered elections, yes. And no I don’t just mean technological tampering, but ICE at polls, denying people last minute, bomb threats, and the like.
Already, they have redistricted so much I wonder if a Democratic win is even possible.
move toward ditching tRump
How? He’s been their whole brand for a freaking decade. And before him the best they could do was Mitt Romney types that made half of their voting base gag.
His age. Once he’s a liability, he’ll be quietly retired. If he costs them a lot of seats and progressives to roll in and diminish their power, the elite will abandon him.
“House”
They could say all Democrats and 4 Republicans. Hardly a big shift and those 4 will fall in line on anything that matters.
In all fairness, whenever any anti-progressive bill passes the house with 4 democrats, lemmy whines about how the democrats are traitors
About fucking time. Even if it’d be veto, Congress should’ve been pushing for this among other things on a daily basis since the pedo in chief took office
It’s not legislation though, just symbolic bullshit
Congress looses more power and relevance doing nothing than if they fight tooth and nail to uphold the constitution, even if it means they die trying.
Not my downvotes by the way; just hoping to convey the importance that symbolism, resilience, and messaging are in politics. It’s the unfortunate reason the right wing and their bigotry took center stage in the 2020s; because their brand and messaging was cohesive and on point. Something that bested the Democrats because it’s what they’ve lacked for a long, long time.
those 4 scapegoats know the penis in cheif will veto
Wake me when the Senate also approves this and it becomes law.
I know text to speech works great both ways, but please learn to read
Ummm. Can’t Trump just veto anything Congress passes, anyway? This is all performative, at best.
Yes but if Trump is forced to veto then Congress is left again to reconsider how badly they want this to stop. We need congress to grow a pair of balls and this is apparently how it will be done.
If anybody powerful enough was ever going to stop this with nonviolence, it would have happened already.
They expect this to happen. It’s part of the process. It’s just more guidance on who to purge and who to villify in the media. It’ll have the same effect as the children who begged Trump to stop raping them.
We need congress to grow a pair of balls and this is apparently how it will be done.
The Republicans control both houses of Congress; even the best case midterm scenario wouldn’t give the Democrats enough votes to override a veto.
Technically the ABSOLUTE best case, in which Dems pick up every single Senate seat (which would probably translate to the requisite 2/3 in the House) they have the barest of margins to do so.
But then let’s talk about our Fetterman problem…
Technically the ABSOLUTE best case, in which Dems pick up every single Senate seat (which would probably translate to the requisite 2/3 in the House) they have the barest of margins to do so.
The realistic best case scenario—particularly after Republican-slanted gerrymandering—won’t be a two-thirds majority in the house, and definitely won’t be a two-thirds majority in the senate.
In this case, it ought to work exactly the opposite of how you think: a Congressional resolution is supposed to be the only thing that gives Trump authority to engage in war to begin with, so the only thing vetoing one ought to be able to accomplish is to remove that authority. There isn’t supposed to be such a thing as as resolution disapproving of the President’s unconstitutional unilateral action; if anything, what Congress just did should be treated like revoking its prior approval and thus not be vetoable.
The people he fucked over are getting revenge. It probably won’t turn into anything.
Somehow, i’m sure we will be told, this is the Democrats’ fault.
That damn Joe BAMALA again!
The war powers resolution from the House would not immediately stop the war, but it would provide a symbolic — if not legal — step against further military action.
The resolution next goes to the Senate, where four Republican senators last month joined Democrats in advancing a similar measure to curtail the U.S. campaign against Iran. The Senate has yet to take a final vote to approve or reject its own war powers resolution.
