Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(129,307 posts)
Tue Jan 14, 2020, 04:26 PM Jan 2020

Senate resolution to limit Trump's military authority on Iran has enough Republican votes to pass

Source: Washington Post

A resolution to curb President Trump’s military authority in Iran has enough votes to pass the Senate, leading Democrats announced Tuesday, stating that Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins will join three other members of the GOP who had previously announced their support for the measure to invoke Congress’ war powers.

“We now have the 51 votes that we need for the version that’s the bipartisan version,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the author of the resolution, told reporters, noting that Republican Sens. Collins, Todd C. Young (Ind.), Mike Lee (Utah) and Rand Paul (Ky.) had decided to join all 47 Democrats in backing the measure.Collins declined to comment about her vote slightly before Kaine’s announcement, stating that she would release a statement soon.

Kaine has been working with those four Republican senators and others to make changes to the resolution since releasing an original draft just a day after Trump approved the strike to kill top Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad. Lee and Paul were the first Republicans to declare their support for the measure, after an administration briefing last week they found both frustrating and insulting, noting how officials refused to say when, if ever, they would consult Congress before launching such a strike — and urging lawmakers to fall in line behind the president.

But Senate Republicans pressed Kaine to make changes to the bill, particularly its many references to Trump and his administration’s stance and past statements regarding Iran. Those have been removed from the amended draft that earned the support of enough Republicans to let it pass the Senate when it is brought to a vote as soon as next week. But by next week, supporters will be competing for floor time with the impeachment calendar, and the timing for the war powers resolution is not yet certain.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/senate-resolution-to-limit-trumps-military-authority-on-iran-has-enough-gop-votes-to-pass-key-democrats-say/2020/01/14/33684f50-3706-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html



Full headline: Senate resolution to limit Trump’s military authority on Iran has enough Republican votes to pass, key Democrat says

Original article -

By Washington Post Staff
Jan. 14, 2020 at 3:24 p.m. EST

Four Republicans have agreed to vote with Democrats in support of the measure, according to Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who wrote the legislation that seeks to prevent President Trump from further escalating hostilities with Iran.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2020/01/14/senate-resolution-to-limit-trumps-military-authority-on-iran-has-enough-republican-votes-to-pass-key-democrat-says/
22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Senate resolution to limit Trump's military authority on Iran has enough Republican votes to pass (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Jan 2020 OP
But not veto proof Flaleftist Jan 2020 #1
No (and wasn't veto-proof in the House either) BumRushDaShow Jan 2020 #2
I would love to see a Twitter fit. He should call all these GOP Senators every name he can think of. Midnight Writer Jan 2020 #3
It's not even Mitch McConnell proof Calista241 Jan 2020 #4
Thank you for the reminder. murielm99 Jan 2020 #5
I understood it is a War Powers vote and True Blue American Jan 2020 #6
Can you explain? murielm99 Jan 2020 #7
I heard one of the Constitutional True Blue American Jan 2020 #8
Can he block it if it originates in the Senate? yellowdogintexas Jan 2020 #9
Apparently because the House version is considered "privileged" the Senate has to vote on it BumRushDaShow Jan 2020 #13
Thank you for the explanation True Blue American Jan 2020 #19
Don't feel badly, I don't think many people understand it. Pacifist Patriot Jan 2020 #22
Exactly and with all that's going on, I'd be shocked if this was allowed to come to the floor. lark Jan 2020 #21
Just saw an article where this special resolution would not go to the President BumRushDaShow Jan 2020 #14
Dear Leader will veto it and the lemmings will then line up to go over the cliff. Vinca Jan 2020 #10
Just found an article that confirmed that this wouldn't go to the President for signing/veto BumRushDaShow Jan 2020 #15
May I recommend Everest's South Col as the cliff du jour? 11 Bravo Jan 2020 #17
They would freeze to death before they get close. Flaleftist Jan 2020 #18
According to the link True Blue American Jan 2020 #20
trump jdl123 Jan 2020 #11
Until a majority of voters call bullshit. BlueIdaho Jan 2020 #12
Orange Droolius will NOT be pleased. 11 Bravo Jan 2020 #16

Midnight Writer

(21,780 posts)
3. I would love to see a Twitter fit. He should call all these GOP Senators every name he can think of.
Tue Jan 14, 2020, 04:59 PM
Jan 2020

Don't put up with this crap, Mr. President. Hit'em hard and hit'em where it hurts. Accuse them of being terrorist sympathizers. Insult their wives. Tell your followers to harass them in public.

Go Go Go!

murielm99

(30,754 posts)
5. Thank you for the reminder.
Tue Jan 14, 2020, 05:24 PM
Jan 2020

If h does not present the bill, we must see to it that it gets plenty of publicity.

LTTEs are still a good method.

yellowdogintexas

(22,270 posts)
9. Can he block it if it originates in the Senate?
Tue Jan 14, 2020, 06:20 PM
Jan 2020

He blocks everything that comes across from the House of course

BumRushDaShow

(129,307 posts)
13. Apparently because the House version is considered "privileged" the Senate has to vote on it
Tue Jan 14, 2020, 06:36 PM
Jan 2020

or their own related version -

Although Pelosi said the measure has "real teeth" because it is a concurrent resolution, it wouldn't have to go to the president's desk for his signature, leading GOP lawmakers to assert that it would be legally nonbinding.

"This is a statement of the Congress of the United States. I will not have that statement diminished by having the president veto it or not," Pelosi said.

A senior Democratic aide noted that the War Powers Act sets out a clear process for the House legislation. The law says "forces shall be removed by the president if Congress so directs by concurrent resolution."

/snip

Because the resolution is privileged, the Senate could be forced to vote on it or a similar resolution that has been introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-says-house-send-clear-war-powers-statement-trump-thursday-n1113006


And apparently this does not go to the President as "legislation". It is a Concurrent Resolution (basically establishing the "sense of Congress" ).

True Blue American

(17,988 posts)
19. Thank you for the explanation
Wed Jan 15, 2020, 01:47 AM
Jan 2020

That was my understanding that it was a War Powers vote, but that explains it.

Pacifist Patriot

(24,653 posts)
22. Don't feel badly, I don't think many people understand it.
Wed Jan 15, 2020, 01:51 PM
Jan 2020

"The resolution is “privileged,” meaning Republicans opposed to the measure cannot block it from coming to a vote once it is “ripe.” It also means that supporters must secure only a simple majority of the Senate, 51 votes, for it to pass."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/senate-resolution-to-limit-trumps-military-authority-on-iran-has-enough-gop-votes-to-pass-key-democrats-say/2020/01/14/33684f50-3706-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html

Now if someone would just explain what privileged and ripe means in this context, I might understand it too.

Seriously, I've been doing some research today and can't find anything that spells out clearly what exactly this means. In the end though, I'm wondering if any of this would actually have teeth. It's not like laws mean anything to Trump anyway. All of it seems rather academic and ceremonial to me under the circumstances.



lark

(23,138 posts)
21. Exactly and with all that's going on, I'd be shocked if this was allowed to come to the floor.
Wed Jan 15, 2020, 09:50 AM
Jan 2020

He had other ways he's protecting himself and his friend in treachery - Impotus3 - from facing the music for his blatant criminality and treason to this country.

BumRushDaShow

(129,307 posts)
15. Just found an article that confirmed that this wouldn't go to the President for signing/veto
Tue Jan 14, 2020, 06:38 PM
Jan 2020

It's more a "Statement" from Congress to the Executive... https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142419026#post13

jdl123

(21 posts)
11. trump
Tue Jan 14, 2020, 06:26 PM
Jan 2020

As far as funding for war. You saw what happened with funding for border wall. The Supreme court ruled, he could take funding from the defense department to fund border wall and to hell with congress.

BlueIdaho

(13,582 posts)
12. Until a majority of voters call bullshit.
Tue Jan 14, 2020, 06:32 PM
Jan 2020

Both Trump and McConnell need to think beyond their nose here. Further military action in the Middle East - regardless of the excuse - is deeply unpopular. It’s the issue that can cost republicans their jobs. Short term this may keep Mitch in Donny’s good graces but the long term consequences could be dire.

11 Bravo

(23,926 posts)
16. Orange Droolius will NOT be pleased.
Tue Jan 14, 2020, 07:19 PM
Jan 2020

Perhaps this will anger him sufficiently to double up on the chili cheeseburgers.
After that, it's all up to his seriously occluded arteries.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Senate resolution to limi...