503
Now all we need is Fetterman, the mentally unwell, unfit to serve quasi-republican who supports action in Iran to sign off on it.
I thought he was a quasi-modo
Uh huh and I'm sure drumpf the child-rapist will certainly do what they say this time.
Fuck you, you already gave him all the power he wants to just do whatever the hell he pleases. He'll just ignore this resolution and start calling the Guardians of Pedophiles who flipped a bunch of schoolyard bully names, browbeating their spineless asses back in line...
This is needed for all the 0 negotiation BS between reopening somewhere between any day in last 2 months and labour day, and just letting Israel supremacists derail any reopening of SoH.
Clinton ignored the War Powers Resolution during the 1999 NATO bombing campaign. He ignored the Resolution's 60-day limit without formal congressional authorisation and ignored the fact congress voted against the declaration of war. The subsequent Campbell v. Clinton case had the federal appeals court ultimately dismiss the lawsuit, ruling that members of Congress lacked the legal standing to sue the President over his war-making actions, neutering the War Powers Resolution.
So yeah prepare for this to mean nothing.
trump will veto it anyway
idk.
I think there's a good chance that he wants an off-ramp and will make a huge show of respecting the will of the legislature in the process of backing out of the war.
anything is possible - copium doesn’t work with this one though
Wdym copium?
They're saying you're being way too optimistic.
basically, in jurassic park dr ian malcom voice: “trump finds a way”
oh, I was just contemplating a different possibility of how things might unfold. I don't have so much of an investment in which is which, whatever happens with this particular issue. I'm not American or Iranian.
I do agree it will somehow turn out in his favour. I would prefer that he just fucks off instead.
So it's a strongly worded letter.
I'm not about the adjective 'strongly'. That might come in a few months after the first letter is ignored.
Exactly as written in the Constitution, right?
"The President can start wars unilaterally and Congress has to pass legislation to stop them."
It doesn't say the FUCKING OPPOSITE, does it?
Fucking clown shoes.
Don't be too hopeful.
The roll call Wednesday was 215-208, but next steps are uncertain. Trump would likely reject any measure from Congress to limit his commander-in-chief authority. Still, the tally, with four Republicans joining Democrats, was a rebuke of the president’s war strategy, and cheers erupted in the House chamber.
So much for checks and balances when the president can just "reject" Congress limiting his power.
This isn't anything new or specific to Trump. He can veto this like any other measure and the veto can be overriden With a 2/3 majority vote in Congress. That's how it's always worked.
The way it's always worked is the president can't unilaterally declare war. Let's not pretend we are still bound by precedent or rules anymore.
Is this the first time a president did war shit without approval?
Takes 51% to allow the prez to declare war or 67% to stop the prez from unilaterally declaring war? Dumb.
That’s how it’s always worked
…since 1983 when the supreme court decided the legislative branch did not have the power to veto the president. Even when congress was the one to delegate the power in the first place.
See: Immigration and Naturalization Service V. Chadha
@ChonkyOwlbear makes a very good point: the idea that the burden is on Congress to disapprove of the war and that Trump can veto their disapproval is completely ass-backwards, if you really think about it, and its absurd that the media and/or general public is treating it as anything remotely resembling business as usual.
(This isn't meant to be a criticism of @Andronyx individually, BTW. I can't blame them for falling for the same logical sleight of hand as almost everybody else.)
Its the Constitution limiting his power. Legally, congress has the power to declare a war. We've just been ignoring that as a society for a while.
If you ain't paying politicians your vote means nothing
The Vietnam conflict was decades long. Comment checks out
This guy never heard of the Trail of Tears.
It's all moot anyway. If the rules worked he wouldn't be able to continue anyway without congressional approval.
If the rules worked he would be in jail instead of the Whitehouse.
I absolutely guarantee you the rules would work perfectly for a democratic president.
Yes, Democrats do tend to vote for people who follow the law. You're right about that
Even a baby step in the right direction is a step AND the right direction.
Better than no step at all.
The republicans didnt grow a spine. The loser want out and needs a scapegoat to explain running away from a war he started.
The midterms will be the litmus test. If there's a strong rebuke of republican rule, look for them to move toward ditching tRump. That's my prediction.
Assuming we have untampered elections, yes. And no I don't just mean technological tampering, but ICE at polls, denying people last minute, bomb threats, and the like.
Already, they have redistricted so much I wonder if a Democratic win is even possible.
move toward ditching tRump
How? He's been their whole brand for a freaking decade. And before him the best they could do was Mitt Romney types that made half of their voting base gag.
His age. Once he's a liability, he'll be quietly retired. If he costs them a lot of seats and progressives to roll in and diminish their power, the elite will abandon him.
"House"
They could say all Democrats and 4 Republicans. Hardly a big shift and those 4 will fall in line on anything that matters.
load more comments
(1 replies)
About fucking time. Even if it'd be veto, Congress should've been pushing for this among other things on a daily basis since the pedo in chief took office
load more comments
(2 replies)
Wake me when the Senate also approves this and it becomes law.
load more comments
(1 replies)
those 4 scapegoats know the penis in cheif will veto
Ummm. Can't Trump just veto anything Congress passes, anyway? This is all performative, at best.
Yes but if Trump is forced to veto then Congress is left again to reconsider how badly they want this to stop. We need congress to grow a pair of balls and this is apparently how it will be done.
If anybody powerful enough was ever going to stop this with nonviolence, it would have happened already.
They expect this to happen. It's part of the process. It's just more guidance on who to purge and who to villify in the media. It'll have the same effect as the children who begged Trump to stop raping them.
We need congress to grow a pair of balls and this is apparently how it will be done.
The Republicans control both houses of Congress; even the best case midterm scenario wouldn't give the Democrats enough votes to override a veto.
Technically the ABSOLUTE best case, in which Dems pick up every single Senate seat (which would probably translate to the requisite 2/3 in the House) they have the barest of margins to do so.
But then let’s talk about our Fetterman problem…
load more comments
(1 replies)
In this case, it ought to work exactly the opposite of how you think: a Congressional resolution is supposed to be the only thing that gives Trump authority to engage in war to begin with, so the only thing vetoing one ought to be able to accomplish is to remove that authority. There isn't supposed to be such a thing as as resolution disapproving of the President's unconstitutional unilateral action; if anything, what Congress just did should be treated like revoking its prior approval and thus not be vetoable.
The people he fucked over are getting revenge. It probably won’t turn into anything.
Somehow, i’m sure we will be told, this is the Democrats’ fault.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The war powers resolution from the House would not immediately stop the war, but it would provide a symbolic — if not legal — step against further military action.
The resolution next goes to the Senate, where four Republican senators last month joined Democrats in advancing a similar measure to curtail the U.S. campaign against Iran. The Senate has yet to take a final vote to approve or reject its own war powers resolution.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
503 points (99.4% liked)
News
37840 readers
1689 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS