The House approved a resolution on Thursday to force the president to halt military action against Iran without Congressional authorization, restarting conversations on the role of Congress in war. Lawmakers voted largely along party lines, with the final vote tallied 224-194. Eight Democrats voted against the resolution and three Republicans voted in favor.

The bill, introduced by Michigan Democrat Elissa Slotkin, limits the president’s war-making power by requiring the president to seek an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) before possibly taking the U.S. into a war with Iran.

An aide to the congresswoman told Cheddar the bill aims to limit the president’s ability to wage such a conflict without consulting Congress.

“If our loved ones are going to be sent to fight in any protracted war, the President owes the American people a public conversation about why and for what ends,” Slotkin said in a press release.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a press conference earlier Thursday, before the vote, that the justification the White House used to justify the strike against Iran’s top military leader Gen. Qassem Soleimani was “foggy.” Slotkin noted Soleimani “was the architect of some of the worst destabilizing activities in the Middle East. But his behavior does not mean that the Administration can disregard the Constitution by engaging in a wider war, without consulting first with Congress.”

Democrats and at least two Republican senators have been publically skeptical of the administration’s justification for the drone strike, which has rotated between the contention the administration was preventing an “imminent threat,” that Iran was “looking to blow up our embassy,” and that Soleimani’s actions in the past were rationalization enough for the strike. The Trump administration has not explicitly offered a public legal justification but seems to indicate the rationale is based in the 2001 or 2002 AUMF measures that supported the War on Terror and the war in Iraq, respectively.

Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the president is supposed to brief Congress within 48 hours of an unauthorized executive military action. Lawmakers were not satisfied with the White House’s decision not to speak with Congress before the attack.

After Senators were finally briefed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and CIA Director Gina Haspel five days after the attack, Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) joined Democrats in questioning the administration's strategy and raising concerns about its justifications. Both Republicans have indicated they would back a Senate version of the House resolution, with Lee saying the briefing was “insulting and demeaning to the Constitution of the United States.”

According to the resolution, a version of which was introduced to the GOP-controlled Senate by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, the president must end the use of U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran unless formally authorized by Congress or if there is an “imminent armed attack upon the United States.” Lee’s press secretary confirmed he would vote for Kaine’s resolution but also supported the strike against Soleimani. Senator Mitt Romney confirmed he spoke to Kaine about the resolution, but did not yet support it. If Lee and Paul indeed voted for the resolution, Democrats would still need two more Republican votes to pass it in the Senate.

House Democrats voted using a concurrent resolution rather than a joint resolution, as the president is never presented with a concurrent resolution to sign. A concurrent resolution is simply enacted once the House and the Senate vote to approve it.

Share:
More In Politics
Why Democrats Losing Hispanic Voters
Chuck Rocha, host of 'Nuestro' podcast and opinion contributor at The New York Times, joins Cheddar News to discuss why Democrats are losing Hispanic voters.
Return-to-Office Mandates Might Be Hurting the Middle Class
More businesses are requiring workers to return to the office, but there is concern that many employees in the middle class, especially women and people of color, need remote work options for reasons including childcare and financial security. Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, joined Cheddar to discuss why office mandates could be detrimental to the middle class. She noted that while companies claim a return to offices would help foster more collaboration and efficiency, reports show that they are successfully able to do their jobs from home.
California Governor Explores Texas-Like Law to Ban Assault Weapons
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled to allow the controversial Texas abortion law to remain in effect, banning abortion at six weeks and allowing any private citizen to sue a person or doctor aiding or abetting someone seeking an abortion. Outraged at this decision, California Governor Gavin Newsom is working to draft a proposal in line with the law as it relates to guns. Shawn Hubler, California correspondent at the New York Times, joins Cheddar News to discuss.
Getting Into the Vaccine Mandate Debate as Google Implements Its Own
Even as tech giant Google implements a vaccination mandate, charging its employees to declare their vaccine status within a time frame or risk dismissal, the federal government is tangled up in the court system trying to impose one of its own. Cindy Cohn, the executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Harry Nelson, founder and managing partner of Nelson Hardiman LLP, joined Cheddar to debate the ethics, efficacy, and legality surrounding the issue. While Cohn noted that she thinks the federal mandate might be legally sound, her organization is also concerned with a separate question of privacy. "At EFF what we're most interested in is the digital surveillance that's going along with some of these attempts to try to track and confirm whether people are vaccinated or not," she said.
Load More