
Senate rejects resolution to curb Trump's use of military in Iran
Sen. Tim Kaine won congressional approval of a similar resolution to prevent the use of the military in Iran during Trump's first term, but the president vetoed it.
WASHINGTON – The Senate voted against curbing President Donald Trump's use of military force in Iran after the U.S. bombing of nuclear facilities and the fragile cease-fire that resulted.
The 47 to 53 vote on June 27 killed the measure from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, which would have required a congressional vote before using the military against Iran again. His resolution was one of at least three pending in Congress that represented a dispute between the legislative and executive branches about who holds the keys to a U.S. attack on another country.
Trump argued as commander in chief of the armed forces he had the discretion to bomb Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. But Democrats note the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.
What is a war-powers resolution?
The Constitution gives Congress the power 'to declare war.'
In addition, lawmakers approved the War Powers Resolution of 1973 during the Vietnam War to require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action. The law also limited the deployment of armed forces to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, in the absence of a formal declaration of war.
But Trump and his allies note he is the commander in chief of the military and that swift, decisive military action is sometimes needed.
'It's a clear attempt to take a slap at President Trump and nothing more,' Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said of the resolution.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said forcing a congressional vote before military operations 'would paralyze this country.' Congress could cut off funding if lawmakers chose to do that, Graham said.
'This is a case study of the chaos that would be created,' Graham said.
Trump told reporters at a June 27 White House news conference that he did not rule out attacking Iran again when asked about the possibility of new bombing of Iranian nuclear sites if deemed necessary at some point.
"Sure, without question, absolutely," Trump said.
Congress serves as check on 'dogs of war': Schiff
Kaine had introduced his resolution days before Trump ordered the bombing against Iran on June 21. Kaine had sponsored a similar measure during Trump's first term that was approved by Congress but vetoed by Trump.
Despite a cease-fire between Iran and Israel, Kaine said the framers of the Constitution placed the decision for declaring war into the hands of Congress even when George Washington was president.
'I pray the cease-fire continues but I fear we're going to be back here on this floor,' Kaine said. 'War is too big an issue to allow one person to make the decision that sends our sons and daughters into harm's way.'
Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, said terminating the use of military weapons against Iran doesn't restrict the country from defending itself or sharing intelligence with Israel.
'There must be a check on the dogs of war,' Schiff said.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, said wars are easy to start but often hard to end.
'Let's be clear: the threat was not imminent,' Merkley said. 'The administration instead acted precipitously, putting American lives at risk.'
Two similar war-power resolutions are pending in the House
Two similar resolutions are pending in the House. Votes could come in mid-July.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, introduced one with Rep. Ro Khanna, D-California. And the top Democrats of three committees – Reps. Jim Himes of Connecticut on Intelligence, Gregory Meeks of New York on Foreign Affairs and Adam Smith of Washington on Armed Services – introduced another.
"President Trump must not be allowed to start a war with Iran, or any country, without Congressional approval, without meaningful consultation or Congressional authorization," the lawmakers said in a joint statement June 23.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, noted the last declaration of war was for World War II in 1941. But he said there have been 125 military operations since then, including in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then-President Joe Biden ordered strikes on Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and then-President Barack Obama ordered an eight-month bombing campaign against Libya, Johnson said.
Johnson, a constitutional attorney before launching his politics career, called the war-powers statute unconstitutional and a relic with reporting requirements to Congress no longer necessary because of 24-hour news cycles and social media.
'The strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were clearly within Trump's Article II powers as commander in chief," Johnson said. "It shouldn't even be in dispute."
Americans concerned about Iran retaliating for bombing: poll
Americans were anxious over a brewing conflict between the U.S. and Iran, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on June 23.
Nearly four out of five Americans surveyed said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes."
The three-day poll, which began after the U.S. airstrikes and ended early June 23 before Iran said it attacked a U.S. air base in Qatar, showed Americans were similarly concerned about their country's military personnel stationed in the Middle East.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hamilton Spectator
11 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Protesters gather in Bangkok to demand Thai prime minister's resignation over leaked Cambodia call
BANGKOK (AP) — Hundreds of protesters gathered in Thailand's capital on Saturday to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, part of the brewing political turmoil set off by a leaked phone call with former Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. Paetongtarn faces growing dissatisfaction over her handling of a recent border dispute with Cambodia involving an armed confrontation May 28. One Cambodian soldier was killed in a relatively small, contested area. The clash set off a string of investigations that could lead to her removal. Protesters held national flags and signs as they occupied parts of the streets around the Victory Monument in central Bangkok. A huge stage was set up at the foot of the monument as participants sat and listened to speakers who said they gathered to express their love of the country following the intensified border row. Many of the leading figures in the protest were familiar faces who were part of a group popularly known as Yellow Shirts , whose clothing color indicates loyalty to the Thai monarchy. They are longtime foes of Paetongtarn's father, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Their rallies at times turned violent and led to military coups in 2006 and 2014, which respectively ousted the elected governments of Thaksin and Paetongtarn's aunt, former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. Outrage over the recorded phone call mostly revolved around Paetongtarn telling Hun Sen, the current Cambodian Senate president and a longtime friend of her father , not to listen to 'an opponent' in Thailand. It's believed to be a reference to the regional Thai army commander in charge of the area where the clash happened, who publicly criticized Cambodia over the border dispute. Hun Sen on Saturday vowed to protect his country's territory from foreign invaders and condemned what he called an attack by Thai forces last month. At a 74th anniversary celebration of the foundation of his long-ruling Cambodian People's Party, Hun Sen claimed the action by the Thai army was illegal when it engaged Cambodian forces. He said the skirmish inside Cambodian territory was a serious violation of country's sovereignty and territorial integrity, despite Cambodia's good will in attempting to resolve the border issue. 'This poor Cambodia has suffered from foreign invasion, war, and genocide, been surrounded and isolated and insulted in the past but now Cambodia has risen on an equal face with other countries. We need peace, friendship, cooperation, and development the most, and we have no politics and no unfriendly stance with any nation,' Hun Sen said in front of cheerful thousands of party members at the event in the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh. There is a long history of territorial disputes between the countries. Thailand is still rattled by a 1962 International Court of Justice ruling that awarded Cambodia the disputed territory where the historic Preah Vihear temple stands . There were sporadic though serious clashes there in 2011. The ruling from the U.N. court was reaffirmed in 2013, when Yingluck was prime minister. The scandal has broken Paetongtarn's fragile coalition government, costing her Pheu Thai Party the loss of its biggest partner, Bhumjaithai Party. There already was a rift between Bhumjaithai and Pheu Thai Party over reports Bhumjaithai would be shuffled out of the powerful Interior Ministry. Several Bhumjaithai leaders also are under investigation over an alleged rigging of last year's Senate election in which many figures who are reportedly close to the party claimed a majority of seats. The departure of Bhumjaithai left the 10-party coalition with 255 seats, just above the majority of the 500-seat house. Paetongtarn also faces investigations by the Constitutional Court and the national anti-corruption agency. Their decisions could lead to her removal from office. Sarote Phuengrampan, secretary-general of the Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, said Wednesday that his agency is investigating Paetongtarn for a serious breach of ethics over the phone call with Hun Sen. He did not give a possible timeline for a decision. Reports said the Constitutional Court can suspend Paetongtarn from duty pending the investigation and could decide as early as next week whether it will take the case. The prime minister said Tuesday she is not worried and is ready to give evidence to support her case. 'It was clear from the phone call that I had nothing to gain from it, and I also didn't cause any damage to the country,' she said. The court last year removed her predecessor from Pheu Thai over a breach of ethics. Thailand's courts, especially the Constitutional Court, are considered a bulwark of the country's royalist establishment, which has used them and nominally independent state agencies such as the Election Commission to cripple or sink political opponents. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

24 minutes ago
High court ruling on injunctions could imperil many court orders blocking the Trump administration
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Friday limiting federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions threatens to upend numerous lawsuits that have led to orders blocking Trump administration policies. Between the start of the new administration and mid-May, judges issued roughly 40 nationwide injunctions against the White House on topics including federal funding, elections rules and diversity and equity considerations. Attorneys involved in some of those cases are vowing to keep fighting, noting the high court left open other legal paths that could have broad nationwide effect. Here's a look at some of the decisions that could be impacted: Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's order denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The high court's decision Friday came in a lawsuit over that order, but the justices left unclear whether the restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Opponents went back to court within hours of the opinion, using a legal path the court left open to file class-action lawsuits that could have nationwide effect. On June 13, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts blocked Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S. An executive order the Republican president issued in March sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. California was one of the plaintiffs in that suit. The office of the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in an email it was assessing the effect of Friday's Supreme Court decision on all of the state's litigation. A federal judge in California in April blocked the administration from cutting off funding for legal representation for unaccompanied migrant children. The administration has appealed. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in San Francisco said there was 'no practical way' to limit the scope of the injunction by party or by geography. 'Indeed, as discussed with the Government's declarants at the preliminary injunction hearing, there exists only one contract for the provision of the subject funding, and it applies to direct legal services nationwide,' Martinez-Olguin wrote. Plaintiffs' attorney Adina Appelbaum, program director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said she didn't think the Supreme Court's decision would significantly affect her case. But she blasted it, saying the high court had 'turned its back on its role to protect the people,' including immigrants. A federal judge in February largely blocked sweeping executive orders that sought to end government support for programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts it considers equity-related. An appeals court later put the decision on hold. Attorneys for the group Democracy Forward represented plaintiffs in the case. The group's president and CEO, Skye Perryman, said she was disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it another barrier to seeking relief in court. But she also said it was limited and could keep at least some decisions blocking the Trump administration in place. A federal judge in February stopped the administration from withholding federal funds from health care facilities that provide gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19. Explaining his reasoning for a nationwide injunction, U.S. District Judge Brendan Abell Hurson in Maryland said a 'piecemeal approach is not appropriate in this case.' 'Significant confusion would result from preventing agencies from conditioning funding on certain medical institutions, while allowing conditional funding to persist as to other medical institutions,' he wrote. An appeal in the case was on hold as the Supreme Court considered similar issues about minors and transgender health care. The high court last week upheld a Tennessee law banning key health care treatments for transgender youth. Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., was one of the attorneys who secured Hurson's ruling. He said the plaintiffs' lawyers were still evaluating the possible impact of the Supreme Court's decision, but he believed the high court recognized that 'systematic, universal relief is sometimes appropriate.' In May, a judge in Rhode Island blocked an executive order that sought to dismantle federal agencies supporting libraries, museums, minority businesses and parties in labor disputes. The administration has appealed. Rhode Island was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The state's attorney general, Peter F. Neronha, said in a statement Friday he would "continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans, all Americans, are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.' ___

24 minutes ago
Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries. Susman Godfrey suggested that it had drawn Trump's ire at least in part because it represented Dominion Voting Systems in the voting machine company's defamation lawsuit against Fox News over false claims surrounding the 2020 presidential election. The suit ended in a massive settlement. Other judges in recent weeks have blocked similar orders against the firms of Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale. The orders have sought to impose similar sanctions, including the suspension of security clearances of attorneys and the restriction of access to federal buildings. 'The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed. In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full," AliKhan wrote. 'Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.' In a statement, the firm called the ruling 'a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation.' 'We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day,' the statement said. Other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports.