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.
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.
Yup, Congress hasnt declared war since WW2 and every “war” since then has been an “operation” or some such language.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
This isn’t a Democrat vs Republican issue.
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.
This logic is what they applied to the gut the EPA.
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.
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.
It’s just like my mom said: You’re free to do whatever you want as long as other people act worse than you.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
deleted by creator
She’s right and Biden should go to Congress. Unfortunately, Mike Johnson and the Fascist Bootlickers will make a stink about it. Still, she’s right and the President should always follow the Constitution.
She’s wrong tho, because the Pres is following the War Powers Act
Congress is for blocking stuff he ran on but doesn’t want to pass. He gets to ignore it when it’s stuff he wants to do.
This is the kind of soundbite that comes off really nice and edgy but doesn’t actually stand up to a second of real legal scrutiny.
The President, under prior acts of Congress, absolutely has the authority to order strikes like this. You’ll notice that the complaining Congress critters here have not actually filed a lawsuit, because they know they’re wrong and will lose. The President does not unilaterally have the authority to institute single-payer healthcare or guarantee abortion rights federally.
He’s not ignoring Congress here. He’s following prior acts of Congress that are still in force. If Congress wanted to stop these actions, they could revoke those authorizations at literally any time.
The situation remains the same. He has congress to block stuff he ran on but doesn’t want to do, and he gets to eschew congress when it’s shit he wants to do.
Okay, but again, this is not an example of him eschewing Congress; this is him quite explicitly following the law as Congress has passed it, so this has essentially no relevance to any other greater grievance you might have with him.
If it’s actually illegal for him to do certain things without Congress and Congress isn’t cooperating, I don’t really see how that’s his fault either, unless you have the counter-example of this Congress agreeing to do things he said he would do but him not doing it anyway. Beyond that, it sounds like your fundamental issue is that Biden is, er, following the law?
At least we’re bombin’ shit and not helpin’ people.
The millions of people with significantly lowered insulin costs because of the IRA might disagree.
Or the 3.6 million people who have had $132 billion of student loan debt forgiven.
Cheers.
Idk, seems like people who want to ship things might be being helped.
