Any Resolution by Congress re: The War Powers Act, Needs a Presidential Signature

[excalibur]

So even if Congress could muster a vote, it would need the President's signature. And that isn't happening.

Since it originally passed, Congress has successfully used the War Powers Resolution to end a military campaign exactly zero times. Not even once in nearly 53 years. This makes the Resolution's 60-day "deadline" essentially a polite suggestion with no enforcement teeth and practically invites lawyerly wordplay. Obama did it with Libya (he argued "operations" didn't constitute "hostilities"). Clinton did it with Kosovo (he argued congressional funding was implicit authorization). Clinton also did it with Somalia (not "sustained"). Biden claimed we weren't engaged in "hostilities" against Russia at all (Ukraine was).

Many SCOTUS-watchers note an unrelated but relevant 1983 Supreme Court decision captioned INS v. Chadha, which disapproved of Congress taking any action without legislative process and 'presentment'— which means getting the presidential John Hancock. So it's likely that, to stop a president's war, Congress would need a signature from the same president it was trying to stop.

Indeed, in 2019, Trump vetoed a Yemen resolution, and Congress lacked the votes to override him. Thus, the War Powers Resolution appears to be the legislative equivalent of a strongly-worded letter, like a notice from the HOA explaining that your 12-by-18 American flag exceeds the 6-by-9 maximum in subsection 4.7(b), and please remit the $10 fine within 30 days.​

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/te...e&r=b7o3b&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

 

[Darkwind]

So even if Congress could muster a vote, it would need the President's signature. And that isn't happening.

Since it originally passed, Congress has successfully used the War Powers Resolution to end a military campaign exactly zero times. Not even once in nearly 53 years. This makes the Resolution's 60-day "deadline" essentially a polite suggestion with no enforcement teeth and practically invites lawyerly wordplay. Obama did it with Libya (he argued "operations" didn't constitute "hostilities"). Clinton did it with Kosovo (he argued congressional funding was implicit authorization). Clinton also did it with Somalia (not "sustained"). Biden claimed we weren't engaged in "hostilities" against Russia at all (Ukraine was).​

​

Many SCOTUS-watchers note an unrelated but relevant 1983 Supreme Court decision captioned INS v. Chadha, which disapproved of Congress taking any action without legislative process and 'presentment'— which means getting the presidential John Hancock. So it's likely that, to stop a president's war, Congress would need a signature from the same president it was trying to stop.​

​

Indeed, in 2019, Trump vetoed a Yemen resolution, and Congress lacked the votes to override him. Thus, the War Powers Resolution appears to be the legislative equivalent of a strongly-worded letter, like a notice from the HOA explaining that your 12-by-18 American flag exceeds the 6-by-9 maximum in subsection 4.7(b), and please remit the $10 fine within 30 days.​

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/te...e&r=b7o3b&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Unless they can get a Veto override. 75% of the members in both chambers, if I remember correctly.

The left can only defund law enforcement through the filibuster shutdown.

Of course, the weak-willed and spinless Republicans allow it.

 

[excalibur]

Unless they can get a Veto override. 75% of the members in both chambers, if I remember correctly.

The left can only defund law enforcement through the filibuster shutdown.

Of course, the weak-willed and spinless Republicans allow it.

Two-thirds of each House, so not happening.

 

[konradv]

So even if Congress could muster a vote, it would need the President's signature. And that isn't happening.

Since it originally passed, Congress has successfully used the War Powers Resolution to end a military campaign exactly zero times. Not even once in nearly 53 years. This makes the Resolution's 60-day "deadline" essentially a polite suggestion with no enforcement teeth and practically invites lawyerly wordplay. Obama did it with Libya (he argued "operations" didn't constitute "hostilities"). Clinton did it with Kosovo (he argued congressional funding was implicit authorization). Clinton also did it with Somalia (not "sustained"). Biden claimed we weren't engaged in "hostilities" against Russia at all (Ukraine was).​

​

Many SCOTUS-watchers note an unrelated but relevant 1983 Supreme Court decision captioned INS v. Chadha, which disapproved of Congress taking any action without legislative process and 'presentment'— which means getting the presidential John Hancock. So it's likely that, to stop a president's war, Congress would need a signature from the same president it was trying to stop.​

​

Indeed, in 2019, Trump vetoed a Yemen resolution, and Congress lacked the votes to override him. Thus, the War Powers Resolution appears to be the legislative equivalent of a strongly-worded letter, like a notice from the HOA explaining that your 12-by-18 American flag exceeds the 6-by-9 maximum in subsection 4.7(b), and please remit the $10 fine within 30 days.​

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/te...e&r=b7o3b&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

MAGA loves to kill!