As the wars end, Congress visits the powers of the President – Honolulu, Hawaii
Washington >> The House of Representatives decided today to revoke the authorization to invade Iraq in 2002. This is the first step in a generation to contain the president’s military power.
The bipartisan action reflects Capitol Hill’s growing determination to reconsider the extensive powers that Congress has given President George W. Bush since September 11, 2001, with successive presidents around the world. Attacks through measures to justify military action.
The 2002 permit has been repeatedly applied, well beyond the original intent. These include campaigns against IS groups in Iraq and the killing of Iranian General Kasem Soleimani last year.
With 268-161 votes, 49 Republicans voted 219 Democrats for the bill. The debate has now moved to the Senate, and there is hope that similar laws will be passed once the US military completes its withdrawal from Afghanistan after nearly 20 years of fighting in Afghanistan.
“To date, our endless war goes way beyond what Congress envisioned or intended and continues to cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives,” said nearly two people. He said in the house for decades to withdraw D-Calif’s approval from Barbara Lee.
New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, said Wednesday he would take similar steps in the Senate. Drafted by Senators Tim Kaine, Diva, and Senator Todd Young, R-Indiana, will be reviewed by the Foreign Relations Committee next week.
President Joe Biden signed a House bill this week saying he would be the first president to accept such efforts to curtail his powers to conduct military operations since the war began in Afghanistan 20 years ago. Biden’s decision came shortly after the announcement of the full withdrawal of troops from the country.
Parliamentary action corresponds to the president’s wartime powers and a rare debate about how the conditions that prompted the House and Senate to give Bush far-reaching powers after September 11, 2001, should be sustained. I’m going. For decades, Congress has given up much of its power to declare war on the president, which worries some members of both parties.
Even if the Senate joins the House of Representatives to withdraw its 2002 approval, it has taken much more than three days for Congress to endorse the use of force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban after the 9/11 attack. Leave widespread support unchanged. Successive presidents cite approvals justifying operations against “related forces” in 2001, and critics have allowed undue liberties to wage an “eternal war” without the approval of the Middle East and subsequent parliaments. He says he gave it to the president.
So far, the Senate has refused to propose a bill to abolish military approval, and the House of Representatives has only done so as an amendment to a broader bill that went nowhere. However, recent support for abolition in 2002, which once existed in neither Senate party, has grown significantly across the political spectrum. A veteran who fought among them.
“It has been almost a decade since this particular grant was cited as the primary reason for military operations,” said Schumer, who voted for a 2002 bill known as the Use of Military Force Grant. “It no longer serves an important purpose in the fight against violent extremists in the Middle East.”
Despite positive opposition from House Foreign Affairs Commissioner Michael McCaul, some Republicans joined the Democratic Party with the abolition of the House of Representatives. While agreeing that the permit should be canceled, he said it needed to be replaced and questioned the timing of the vote. “I don’t think this is a serious legislative process,” said McCall. “This feels like yet another political attempt to undo one of President Trump’s bold US counter-terrorism successes.”
At least five Republicans in the Senate, including Young, have signed the Chamber of Commerce bill. Some others said this week they were ready to consider abolition.
“I think AUMF is being interpreted too broadly,” said Senator Ted Cruz of R-Texas. “It’s me because Congress claims its power in war.”
A broad anti-war coalition sees the vote to abolish the 2002 measures as a step beyond the limits of larger and perhaps longer-term efforts to break the presidential orders.
“This is one of the longest wars,” said Dan Caldwell, senior advisor to the conservative organization Concerned Veterans for America.
Many Republicans and some Democrats can resist.
“We want to keep what we had in 2001,” said Oklahoma Senator James M. Inhof, the senior Republican member of the Senate Military Commission. If the 2001 license is retained, Inhofe said, “The 2002 license will be a consumable.”
Unlike declarations of large-scale conflicts such as World War II, permits for the use of force are usually intended for limited use in certain missions or regions such as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. ..
By abolishing the 2002 permit and stimulating discussions on the 2001 measures, lawmakers and their supporters hope that Congress will gain new powers to authorize participation.
In turn, they believe the president will be more politically sensitive to using his power to carry out military actions without the express consent of Congress. For example, Mr Kane said that Biden’s recent air strikes in Syria, ordered without parliamentary approval, “show that the government is continuing to build its military power regardless of the political party.”
President Barack Obama dared to more or less discuss the use of military force abroad in parliament in 2015, but the parties refused for the opposite reasons. Republicans were reluctant to authorize Obama for not approving Obama’s foreign policy, and Democrats still abstained from approving the 2002 Iraq war.
However, time and residents of the White House changed the situation as a variety of groups including the Conservative Heritage Foundation, the American Legion, and the liberal nonprofit VoteVets that backed the Democratic Party in 2002 scrapped the permit. I support that. The American Legion Association, a veterans advocacy group.
Obama sent various messages about his views on the president’s military power, and President Donald Trump would have turned down efforts to rule out approval in 2002. However, Biden, who was once chairman of the Senate’s Foreign Affairs Committee, has always had sympathy for the constitutional role of Congress on war issues.
The White House said: âThe President is ensuring that the old authorization for the use of military force is replaced with a narrow and concrete framework that will allow Americans to continue to protect against the threat of terrorism. I promise to work with Congress to do this. “Statement.
The remaining uncertainty could be a Senate Democrat or two and some Senate Republicans who remain skeptical of abolition. This week Senator Joni Ernst from Iowa, Susan Collins from Maine, Josh Hawley from Missouri, John Thune from South Dakota and other Republicans stand ready to abolish the 2002 bill in an interview. Said.
âWe all see that,â said Thune.
Young, a retired Navy captain, might be persuasive about gathering Republican support for the Senate bill promoted by Kane, who has worked on the matter for decades.
“We all respect and respect Senator Young,” said Republican Senator John Cornyn, adding that he regards the abolition as having no particular benefit. âHe’s a marine and a veteran. He has a lot of street credit. I have to say he’s influential. “
This article is originally from the New York Times ..
As the wars subside, Congress resumes the powers of the President Source link With the wars end, Congress resumes the powers of the President