On 13 February, the U.S. Senate voted in favor of a War Powers Resolution that would require President Trump to get congressional approval before taking any further military action against Iran.
The official language called for “the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.”
The 55 to 44 vote, which included both Democrats and Republicans, was in response to President Trump’s order six weeks earlier, on 3 January, to assassinate Iran’s top military commander and popular political figure Qasem Soleimani. That murder brought the U.S. and Iran to the brink of all-out war… and also spiked oil prices!
At the time the resolution was passed, Senator Tim Kaine, one of its main sponsors, said, “It wasn’t intended to rein in any one president’s power. It would apply equally to any president. It’s fundamentally about Congress owning up to and taking responsibility for the most significant decision that we should ever have to make.”
Voting along party lines, the House of Representatives passed a similar resolution last month.
The votes were known to be symbolic, as they failed to muster the required two-thirds majority that would make them veto-proof. On 6 May, President Trump, as expected, made his veto official, calling the Iran War Powers Resolution “very insulting.”
He added, “Contrary to the resolution, the United States is not engaged in the use of force against Iran. Four months ago, I took decisive action to eliminate Qasem Soleimani while he was in Iraq. Iran responded by launching a series of missiles at our forces stationed in Iraq.”
Defending the legality and Constitutional Right he had to order the assassination, President Trump proclaimed, “The resolution implies that the President’s constitutional authority to use military force is limited to defense of the United States and its forces against imminent attack. That is incorrect… We live in a hostile world of evolving threats, and the Constitution recognizes that the President must be able to anticipate our adversaries’ next moves and take swift and decisive action in response. That’s what I did!”
The following day, as expected, the Senate failed to come even close to the needed two-thirds majority, receiving a vote of 49-44 in favor.
TRENDPOST: Totally absent in the political and media banter is how Congress has been in violation of the U.S. Constitution since the end of World War II by granting the President the right to wage war while abrogating their authority to do so:
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
“The Congress shall have Power… To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules conquering Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
Indeed, with the military industrial/intelligence complex in charge, by violating the Constitution and granting war powers to the President, it negates the clause “but no Appropriation of Money to the Use shall be for a longer TERM than two Years” and supports America’s discretionary budget for which more than half goes toward military spending.

Comments are closed.

Skip to content