RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: US Senate Votes to Curb Trump's Iran War Powers - RightNation.US

Jump to content

US Senate Votes to Curb Trump's Iran War Powers Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is online   pepperonikkid 

  • Trucker
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 13,251
  • Joined: 03-September 03

  Posted 13 February 2020 - 11:36 PM

US Senate Votes to Curb Trump's Iran War Powers



https://www.voanews.com
By Katherine GypsonFebruary 13, 2020




Article:





A handful of Republican senators joined their Democratic colleagues Thursday to pass a resolution calling on President Donald Trump to "terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces for hostilities against Iran" unless those actions are authorized by Congress.

The U.S. Senate passed the bipartisan war powers resolution by a vote of 55-45.

Trump is expected to veto the measure, arguing it would be dangerous to limit his war-making power.

"It is very important for our Country's SECURITY that the United States Senate not vote for the Iran War Powers Resolution," Trump said on Twitter Wednesday. "We are doing very well with Iran and this is not the time to show weakness."

Trump said he had overwhelming American public support for the airstrike last month that killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.

"If my hands were tied, Iran would have a field day," he said. "Sends a very bad signal. The Democrats are only doing this as an attempt to embarrass the Republican Party. Don't let it happen!"

But Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, the resolution's co-sponsor, argued it was time to reassert the U.S. Congress' constitutional authority to declare war as tensions between the U.S. and Iran increased following the death of Soleimani.



Full Story



0

#2 User is offline   Currahee! 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 2,302
  • Joined: 21-April 04

Posted 13 February 2020 - 11:50 PM

Fine....primary each and every republican that voted against the President........Trump should challenge this in the SCOTUS.....because it seems un-constitutional to me. Maybe Iím wrong........
0

#3 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,103
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 14 February 2020 - 12:16 AM

View PostCurrahee!, on 13 February 2020 - 11:50 PM, said:

Fine....primary each and every republican that voted against the President........Trump should challenge this in the SCOTUS.....because it seems un-constitutional to me. Maybe I'm wrong........


He can veto it. They don't have the numbers to override that.
Oh and it is UnConstitutional. The Constitution requires the POTUS to defend the nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. There isn't a time to debate when lives are on the line.

0

#4 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 30,764
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 14 February 2020 - 12:21 AM

Drone strikes by Obama on Americans? Go ahead.

Drone strikes by Trump on Iranian terrorists? Major overstepping of boundaries!!! Congress must act!!

This post has been edited by zurg: 14 February 2020 - 12:22 AM

0

#5 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 52,324
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 14 February 2020 - 12:27 AM

View Postzurg, on 14 February 2020 - 12:21 AM, said:

Drone strikes by Obama on Americans? Go ahead.

Drone strikes by Trump on Iranian terrorists? Major overstepping of boundaries!!! Congress must act!!

Can't we just get Trump a pen and a phone as Obama had?
0

#6 User is online   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 33,760
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 14 February 2020 - 04:36 AM

This goes to show that the deep state is still very much in control over the GOP as much as the dems.
0

#7 User is offline   NH Populist 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 2,177
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 14 February 2020 - 08:03 AM

Taking out a man who's been labeled a terrorist for 20 years is a bad thing?! Hello?! Obama's not the president any more...
0

#8 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,134
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 14 February 2020 - 08:07 AM

View PostTaggart Transcontinental, on 14 February 2020 - 12:16 AM, said:

He can veto it. They don't have the numbers to override that.
Oh and it is UnConstitutional. The Constitution requires the POTUS to defend the nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. There isn't a time to debate when lives are on the line.


Good.

Tim Kaine needs to ESAD.

View PostRock N, on 14 February 2020 - 04:36 AM, said:

This goes to show that the deep state is still very much in control over the GOP as much as the dems.


:exactly:

View PostLiz, on 14 February 2020 - 12:27 AM, said:

Can't we just get Trump a pen and a phone as Obama had?


I say go for it!
0

#9 User is offline   GrimV 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 9,467
  • Joined: 08-May 06

Posted 14 February 2020 - 08:23 AM

Is this really such a bad thing?

Presidents have incrementally increased their power over the years, to the point where Checks and Balances are almost meaningless.

Just look at the latest crop of Democrat candidates, all of whom promise the elimination of at least one protected right.

Personally, I've got no problem with a return to congressional oversight.
0

#10 User is offline   WillieChuck 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 567
  • Joined: 07-September 03

Posted 14 February 2020 - 10:53 AM

View PostGrimV, on 14 February 2020 - 08:23 AM, said:

Is this really such a bad thing?

Presidents have incrementally increased their power over the years, to the point where Checks and Balances are almost meaningless.

Just look at the latest crop of Democrat candidates, all of whom promise the elimination of at least one protected right.

Personally, I've got no problem with a return to congressional oversight.


If that was all this is about I'd have no problem either. However this is about election cycle talking points, and nothing more. And as I understand it, this only applies to actions inside the state of Iran. As it stands, only congress can declare "war" on an adversarial state., so what changes? In the latest round, that this is in response to, the Iranian regime authorized several increasingly lethal acts of war against us that culminated in the removal of the head of the snake (root cause of the problem and key decision maker) through decisive action by the president. Their response, was an act of war by any objective measure and we would have been will within our rights to respond in kind or even take out all 52 identified targets to eliminate further escalations by the Iranian regime. The work around to strikes inside of Iran is to have one of our allies in the region (read Israel) conduct the strikes. The Iranian regime publicly calls for the eradication of Israel as a nation state and they have a right to defend themselves when they receive "actionable intelligence" of an impending attack on their sovereignty. If the Iranian regime directs attacks on US forces or US interests outside of Iran, then the resolution won't apply as responses will be local to the region with the actionable intelligence used to authorize military responses shared with congressional committees after the fact. This is a do nothing resolution that won't hinder the President's ability to respond appropriately to acts of aggression against deployed troops or US interests abroad. Additionally, the POTUS can enforce the NDAs that all members of the US government, to include government contractors, sign and must adhere to. So when members of congress are granted access to classified information, disclosure to unauthorized sources can and should be dealt with the the fullest extent of the law.
0

#11 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 30,764
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 14 February 2020 - 10:58 AM

View PostWillieChuck, on 14 February 2020 - 10:53 AM, said:

If that was all this is about I'd have no problem either. However this is about election cycle talking points, and nothing more. And as I understand it, this only applies to actions inside the state of Iran. As it stands, only congress can declare "war" on an adversarial state., so what changes? In the latest round, that this is in response to, the Iranian regime authorized several increasingly lethal acts of war against us that culminated in the removal of the head of the snake (root cause of the problem and key decision maker) through decisive action by the president. Their response, was an act of war by any objective measure and we would have been will within our rights to respond in kind or even take out all 52 identified targets to eliminate further escalations by the Iranian regime. The work around to strikes inside of Iran is to have one of our allies in the region (read Israel) conduct the strikes. The Iranian regime publicly calls for the eradication of Israel as a nation state and they have a right to defend themselves when they receive "actionable intelligence" of an impending attack on their sovereignty. If the Iranian regime directs attacks on US forces or US interests outside of Iran, then the resolution won't apply as responses will be local to the region with the actionable intelligence used to authorize military responses shared with congressional committees after the fact. This is a do nothing resolution that won't hinder the President's ability to respond appropriately to acts of aggression against deployed troops or US interests abroad. Additionally, the POTUS can enforce the NDAs that all members of the US government, to include government contractors, sign and must adhere to. So when members of congress are granted access to classified information, disclosure to unauthorized sources can and should be dealt with the the fullest extent of the law.

This. The president quite possibly AVOIDED escalation with the drone strike. Now the Deep Staters want to remove that, and only because itís Trump. Watch a lefty make it there one day and voila! the law is no more.

Iím sooooo distrusting of Washington, I trust them less than 0% of the time.
0

#12 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,777
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 14 February 2020 - 11:07 AM

Ah, these military scholars in Congress. Nothing makes it easier to threaten and constrain your enemy like making it clear you won't strike at them. Credible threat? What's that?
0

#13 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,839
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 14 February 2020 - 11:56 AM

View PostLiz, on 14 February 2020 - 12:27 AM, said:

Can't we just get Trump a pen and a phone as Obama had?


Can you imagine the hue and cry?
0

#14 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,134
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 14 February 2020 - 12:16 PM

If god forbid a Democrap ever gets elected POTUS, they'll come to regret this....
0

#15 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,103
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 14 February 2020 - 02:36 PM

View PostLiz, on 14 February 2020 - 12:27 AM, said:

Can't we just get Trump a pen and a phone as Obama had?


Remember Obama was "super prez" and therefore could leap any law, violate any right, and deny the constitution. Trump is Mini-me POTUS and therefore cannot exercise any real power of the Presidency.
0

#16 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,103
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 14 February 2020 - 02:38 PM

View PostGrimV, on 14 February 2020 - 08:23 AM, said:

Is this really such a bad thing?

Presidents have incrementally increased their power over the years, to the point where Checks and Balances are almost meaningless.

Just look at the latest crop of Democrat candidates, all of whom promise the elimination of at least one protected right.

Personally, I've got no problem with a return to congressional oversight.


Yeah actually it is.

Imagine, the US is attacked by China. They hit our boats in the pacific and declare their new borders. Our President cannot respond because he has to get to the debate society and get their permission to react. Meanwhile the Chinese are solidifying their positions and we are losing people.

0

#17 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,103
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 14 February 2020 - 02:44 PM

View PostRedSoloCup, on 14 February 2020 - 12:16 PM, said:

If god forbid a Democrap ever gets elected POTUS, they'll come to regret this....


No because they will change the rules IMMEDIATELY upon that person taking office. Just like they keep pushing the 2 term limit rule.
0

#18 User is offline   GrimV 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 9,467
  • Joined: 08-May 06

Posted 14 February 2020 - 02:53 PM

View PostTaggart Transcontinental, on 14 February 2020 - 02:38 PM, said:

Yeah actually it is.

Imagine, the US is attacked by China. They hit our boats in the pacific and declare their new borders. Our President cannot respond because he has to get to the debate society and get their permission to react. Meanwhile the Chinese are solidifying their positions and we are losing people.


Where does the resolution say a President is not allowed to defend the US against an attack?
0

#19 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 30,764
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 14 February 2020 - 07:48 PM

View PostGrimV, on 14 February 2020 - 02:53 PM, said:

Where does the resolution say a President is not allowed to defend the US against an attack?

The point is, at least my point would be, that the law prevents the CiC from launching pre-emptive attacks like the one against Soleimani. Thatís why the democrats drafted it.
0

#20 User is offline   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,493
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 14 February 2020 - 07:58 PM

View Postzurg, on 14 February 2020 - 07:48 PM, said:

The point is, at least my point would be, that the law prevents the CiC from launching pre-emptive attacks like the one against Soleimani. Thatís why the democrats drafted it.


Pre-emptive? The Democrats' posthumous crush is the one who ordered the first punch.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users