this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
64 points (84.0% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2411 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
64
Jayapal: US-led strikes on Yemen ‘an unacceptable violation’ of Constitution (thehill.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) criticized U.S.-led strikes on Yemen, saying they were “an unacceptable violation of the Constitution.”

“Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress,” Jayapal added in her post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, late Thursday.

Other Democrats, including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), also criticized the strikes.

all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 72 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Per the article, this military action falls under the War Powers Act.

The Act requires the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of military action and requires the termination of military action within 60 days of its commencement if Congress has not officially declared war or authorized the military action.

These rebels have been attacking shipping, including US warships making this a defensive action. In addition, Congress was notified within 48 hours and 60 days have not yet passed. While I personally oppose further involvement in the middle-east, pretending that this is a violation of the Constitution is absurd. This crap has been going on since the War Powers Act was passed in 1973. If these legislatures don't like it, then they are well within their rights to repeal the War Powers Act or get SCOTUS to rule it unconstitutional.

Of course, they won't do that though. That might keep the president from bombing the people that they want bombed.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yup, Congress hasnt declared war since WW2 and every "war" since then has been an "operation" or some such language.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, that's not true.

Almost all of the US "war" action in your lifetime has been fully authorized by Congress under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Only one member of Congress voted against it, as I recall, and she lost her election for doing it. She voted against it because it was way too broad and expansive and would be able to justify nearly any intervention with no sunset date. She was 100% right.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

No, it IS true. Nothing I said was false, you merely added more info and a misconception about war declaration.

Congress has not declared war since 1942

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/when-congress-once-used-its-powers-to-declare-war

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What's your point, then, if not to imply that these military activities since the war powers act have been happening without congressional approval -- something that is simply not true?

If there's a misconception about war declaration being spread around here, it's the idea that a war declaration is somehow necessary -- or even important -- as part of the process of conducting warlike activities. That's just now how it works in the modern world. Modern countries do not declare war on other countries. They engage indirectly or develop legal pretenses about how it's just some specific organization they are targeting or goal being achieved.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Ive never implied anything about circumventing Congress, you keep shoehorning that into this discussion for some reason.

The 2nd paragraph is spot on, and your last sentence is exactly what im trying to convey as well. Thanks fam.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

There's an argument that the war powers act is unconstitutional, but it will likely never actually get challenged.

The more fun fact is that if Biden continues action past 60 days, he will be the third consecutive Democratic president to violate the war powers act.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

This isn't a Democrat vs Republican issue.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We were fired upon and returned fire. It would be a hell of a day if you had to have congressional action to do that.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

This logic is what they applied to the gut the EPA.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If you were going to say something about this, the time would have been when Operation Prosperity Guardian was announced. The Houthis are directly firing on US warships, so the response could be considered defensive action and not fall under article 1 of the Constitution. It's not that these representatives can't criticize US involvement, but they were okay with the ships being there in the first place. Can't have your cake and eat it too. If you were a sea woman/seaman being fired upon by cruise missiles, I'd imagine you'd like the ability to fire back and eliminate the threat. All it takes is one cruise missile or UAV to not get detected or destroyed to kill dozens if not hundreds of sailors.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The official Houthi motto, which they fly proudly on their flag, is:

God is the Greatest

Death to America

Death to Israel

A Curse Upon the Jews

Victory to Islam

Just a reminder of who they are.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

While I agree, let's not pretend that presidents haven't been launching combat missions without formal declaration of war for decades. Longer than I've been alive. It's one of the biggest expansions of executive power we have allowed, under the guise of "the war on terror", "the cold war", or even "the war on drugs".

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

There's not really any room to agree with her legally; she is categorically wrong. This action falls under previous standing military authorizations that Congress has passed.

If Congress has an issue with it, they can revoke them at any time. She can say that she thinks it's wrong and that we shouldn't have done it, but to say that it's unconstitutional is just broadcasting an embarrassing lack of knowledge for a sitting member of Congress.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I guess I meant that those standing authorizations should not exist, as they effectively abdicate a power the Constitution outlined for Congress, transferring it to the President. They erode the checks and balances.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's an argument for Congress revoking it though, not for it being illegal.

To that end, I mostly do agree actually. It's not a good idea for the President to have such vast unilateral military powers without prior Congressional oversight, but again, this was all done by Congress to begin with. They can repeal it at any time.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

I'd argue that an unconstitutional law is itself illegal, and thus does not render an unconstitutional action legal. That said, I'm sure I'd lose any argument on the constitutionality of the war power granted by Congress to the President.

The truth is, our Constitution was written in a time when the world moved much more slowly. It's unfortunately no longer practical to expect it to work in a world as fast paced as ours is today. We need a full rewrite, but I do not trust anyone to rewrite it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Agree, is there some rule that says progressives have to show their whole ass today? Super disappointed. Lying to our faces or woefully underprepared to do the job. Both looks suck. These people are damaging the future of the cause to score some own goals today.

Fucking shameful showing.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

If the representative wants me to think she cares about the Constitution and democracy maybe she shouldn't be making her statements on a website that's basically pro-nazi.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

“Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress,” Jayapal added in her post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, late Thursday.

“The President needs to come to Congress before launching a strike against the Houthis in Yemen and involving us in another middle east conflict,” Khanna posted on X.

“Today’s defensive action follows this extensive diplomatic campaign and Houthi rebels’ escalating attacks against commercial vessels,” Biden said.

“These targeted strikes are a clear message that the United States and our partners will not tolerate attacks on our personnel or allow hostile actors to imperil freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most critical commercial routes.”

“I will not hesitate to direct further measures to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce as necessary,” Biden said.

Washington and London should bear the responsibility for militarizing the Red Sea,” the statement continues.

The original article contains 283 words, the summary contains 148 words. Saved 48%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!