• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate rejects attempt to curb Trump's Iran war powers

HumblePi

HumblePi

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
26,338
Reaction score
18,863
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Senate rejects attempt to curb Trump's Iran war powers


Senate rejects attempt to curb Trump's Iran war powers | TheHillSenators blocked an effort on Friday to restrict President Trump’s ability to go to war with Iran, handing a victory to Republicans and the White House.
Senators voted 50-40 on the proposal from Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine (Va.) and Tom Udall (N.M.) to block the president from using funding to carry out military action without congressional authorization.


Sixty yes votes would have been required to get the amendment added to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In a round of unusual procedural maneuvering, senators passed the mammoth defense bill on Thursday, but agreed to add the Kaine-Udall proposal retroactively if they could secure the votes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get ready for a madman with a red button and all the money he wants from Congress at his fingertips to get desperate enough that he would use that power and war with Iran just to remain in office interminably.

tenor.gif
 
Last edited:
the-sky-is-falling.jpg
 
This is definitely one area in which Congress has to re-assert its Congressional responsibility.

I'm tired of presidents dragging us into distant wars to distract or score political points.

Especially draft-dodger presidents.
 
Quote from Fox News: "... Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called it nothing more than another example of "Trump Derangement Syndrome," which he explained as whatever the president's for "they seem to be against."

Bingo!
 
Vietnam was a "conflict" because congress never declared war on the North Vietnamese. It looked like a war to me.
 
if the Democrats win the Senate and presidency, one of their top jobs needs to be to reduce the power of the presidency. we currently have one person making way too many unilateral decisions, and sometimes the easily duped elect dangerously inept idiots.
 
Barnacle said:
Quote from Fox News: "... Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called it nothing more than another example of "Trump Derangement Syndrome," which he explained as whatever the president's for "they seem to be against."

Bingo!
Click to expand...

Exactly what he did when Obama was president.
 
Helix said:
if the Democrats win the Senate and presidency, one of their top jobs needs to be to reduce the power of the presidency. we currently have one person making way too many unilateral decisions, and sometimes the easily duped elect dangerously inept idiots.
Click to expand...

Congress has been giving up it’s powers (responsibility) for decades. It’s gotten so far now that people are talking about nonexistent “Presidential war powers”. Ridiculous.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Congress has been giving up it’s powers (responsibility) for decades. It’s gotten so far now that people are talking about nonexistent “Presidential war powers”. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

i agree. perhaps that's a question that should be asked to the Democratic hopefuls at a debate. i doubt that the Democratic base is thrilled that Tweety can singlehandedly start trade wars, so fixing that loophole seems like a winning issue.
 
Helix said:
if the Democrats win the Senate and presidency, one of their top jobs needs to be to reduce the power of the presidency. we currently have one person making way too many unilateral decisions, and sometimes the easily duped elect dangerously inept idiots.
Click to expand...

Like a Democrat Congress is going to reduce a Democrat president power.
 
Helix said:
i agree. perhaps that's a question that should be asked to the Democratic hopefuls at a debate. i doubt that the Democratic base is thrilled that Tweety can singlehandedly start trade wars, so fixing that loophole seems like a winning issue.
Click to expand...

How will Harris outlaw guns via executive order, if they take her power away?
 
Helix said:
if the Democrats win the Senate and presidency, one of their top jobs needs to be to reduce the power of the presidency. we currently have one person making way too many unilateral decisions, and sometimes the easily duped elect dangerously inept idiots.
Click to expand...

The Unitary Executive theory needs to strictly codified in a much weaker version.

According to law professors Lawrence Lessig and Cass Sunstein,
"No one denies that in some sense the framers created a unitary executive; the question is in what sense. Let us distinguish between a strong and a weak version."
Click to expand...

The military is an example of where the "strong" theory is ideal.
The United States is more than just its military however. We are not to be governed by a civilian version of a military junta.
 
The real thing would be fine at this point.

Coming soon.

Sooner or later. The sooner the better.
 
Barnacle said:
Quote from Fox News: "... Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called it nothing more than another example of "Trump Derangement Syndrome," which he explained as whatever the president's for "they seem to be against."

Bingo!
Click to expand...

“Congress shall have the power to declare war.”’

Bingo!
 
Helix said:
i agree. perhaps that's a question that should be asked to the Democratic hopefuls at a debate. i doubt that the Democratic base is thrilled that Tweety can singlehandedly start trade wars, so fixing that loophole seems like a winning issue.
Click to expand...
In a political world where there really were black hat and white hat public servants, sure. Sadly, I don’t believe that any party in power would willingly relinquish any of it.
 
Nickyjo said:
“Congress shall have the power to declare war.”’
Bingo!
Click to expand...

"The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force ... "
 
Barnacle said:
"The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force ... "
Click to expand...

Was a good idea. Came out of US tendency not to dignify invasions of ****hole countries with a declaration of war. After all, Lebanon and Grenada are not Nazi Germany, towards which we had to be polite.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
In a political world where there really were black hat and white hat public servants, sure. Sadly, I don’t believe that any party in power would willingly relinquish any of it.
Click to expand...

probably not, and that's a concern. i'm becoming increasingly convinced that the two party system is a fundamental and potentially fatal flaw in our system that will be studied in history classes hundreds of years from now. the sad part is that our first president outlined this scenario in his farewell address, and here we are anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom