Posted on 07/12/2019 3:29:08 PM PDT by ransomnote
WASHINGTON — The House voted Friday to curb President Trump’s ability to strike Iran militarily on Friday, adopting a bipartisan provision that would require the president to get Congress’s approval before authorizing military force against Tehran.
The 251-170 vote reflects lawmakers’ growing desire to take back long-ceded authority over matters of war and peace from the executive branch, a reclamation legislators contend has grown increasingly urgent amid escalating tensions with Iran. It also reflected a war weariness on both sides of the aisle after 17 years of conflict in the Middle East; 27 Republicans joined all but seven Democrats to approve it.
Last month, Mr. Trump led the United States to the brink of a retaliatory missile strike before abruptly reversing course minutes before launch. On Thursday, three Iranian boats briefly tried to block passage of a British tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, according to Britain’s Ministry of Defense.
Mr. Trump said last month he believes he does not need congressional approval to strike Iran. The vote Friday amounted to a pointed and bipartisan rebuttal — led by strange ideological bedfellows, Representatives Ro Khanna, a liberal Democrat from California, and Matt Gaetz of Florida, one of Mr. Trump’s most strident Republican allies in Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“......Against All Enemies, Foreign And Domestic......”
“......Against All Enemies, Foreign And Domestic......”
Ditto Dat !!!!!’
Hahaha, Trump is literally one of a handful of people who didn’t want to attack
HA! Riiiiiight. If Iran does something, they'll pin it on President Trump and accuse him of doing nothing.
I’m sure the Muslims in Congress don’t want to see US bombs falling on a Muslim country.
When will the Senate take up the question?
No kidding. This actually screws the pooch for the RINO warmongers advising him, who REALLY want war.
It’s BS and doesn’t mean a thing. One branch of govt. cannot usurp powers belonging to another branch. It’s the checks and balances thing. If I were Pres. Trump I’d get a judge to OVERRULE congress and give them a taste of their own medicine.
How many conflicts has trump got us into again?
Muslims in Congress, that’s the start of the problem.
“They just hit Detroit with a nuke!”
“No loss”
“But Mr President, are we going to retaliate?”
“I hope so, but right now there must be one hell of a debate over the possibility of going to war. We’ll know in a few days unless Congress goes on its scheduled recess.”
“But, Sir!”
“I know back in the good old days I’d a given the OK and we’d a clobbered them, but now we’ll likely have to take a few more hits before Congress finishes its debate and gives the OK. But you know full well some liberal judge will over rule them, halting all retaliation as ‘racist’ or something.”
what BS! has zero impact, effect and Nancy Pelousy knows it
what i don’t understand is why the commieDNC types keep pandering to their lunatic leftwing extremist core voting block
when they’ve GOT those 5% captured anyway...
seems to be very unwise politics
but.... so be it!
MAGA!
“provision that would require the president”
I imagine President with a capital “P” is in the NYT Style Guide, but maybe they carved out an exception for President Trump. Likewise, they ought to say “a President”, unless Congress had the gall to pass a bill that only applies to the current Administration.
Good.
No President, Trump included, has the authority to take us to war without the consent of the people (House) and the States (Senate).
In 1941, the Congress used the words “authorize and direct the President” to utilize the Army and the Navy to wage war on Japan.
That is the correct way to use the authority granted to the Congress.
“One branch of govt. cannot usurp powers belonging to another branch”
Correct. Which branch raises an Army and a Navy, makes the rules to administer them, and declares war?
“No President, Trump included, has the authority to take us to war without the consent of the people (House) and the States (Senate).”
Have you ever read about the Whiskey Rebellion? George Washington, who was close to the writing of the Constitution, sent troops to Pennsylvania to quell a public uprising. He did not seek authorization from Congress.
Likewise, Lincoln did not seek authorization from Congress in pursuing the war against the South.
So in your thinking, the President can wage war against the American people without authorization from Congress, but not enemies overseas.
The practical effect of this law is to give aid and comfort to Iran, an enemy who wants to destroy us. They, like you, rejoice in this law.
Then why the "redundant" vote.
I thought the President has the authority to use military force when he sees fit, but withing 60 day the Congress is obligated to give a ‘yea’ or ‘nay’.
Or did that change?
I guess it means if Israel nukes Iran, we wont have a WhiteHouse to stop it... what is congress going to do then?
That is right, this is a hypocrite attempt of Congress to take over the executive
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.