Latest news with #WarPowersAct
The Hill
22-05-2025
- Automotive
- The Hill
Republicans avoid direct clash with Senate parliamentarian on California EV mandate
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Wednesday maneuvered to avoid a direct clash with the Senate parliamentarian over whether the Congressional Review Act can be used to overturn California's electric vehicle (EV) mandate. Thune did so by setting up an elaborate series of procedural votes to allow the Senate to settle the controversial question. Thune brought to the floor a joint resolution sponsored by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( to disapprove of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rule on safety standards for hydrogen vehicles. That bill will serve as a vehicle to expand the reach of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). With the procedural move, Thune threw a last-minute curveball at Democrats, who had expected him to first bring to the floor Capito's other joint resolution, which has already passed the House, to repeal California's EV waivers that prohibit the sale of new gas-powered light-duty vehicles by 2035 under the review act. Democrats were planning to use the parliamentarian's ruling that the EV waivers did not constitute rulemaking under the law to try to defeat the resolution. But instead, Thune decided to move first to the Capito resolution on hydrogen vehicle standards to pose several questions directly to the Senate that would take the question of whether the EV waivers are eligible for CRA review out of the parliamentarian's hands. He did so because some Senate Republicans, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), were uncomfortable about the prospect of flat-out overruling the parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough. Thune argued the Senate had to weigh in because it was a 'novel' procedural question. 'I believe that when the Senate is facing a novel situation like this one with disagreement among its members, it is appropriate for the Senate to speak as a body to the question,' he said on the floor. He noted that the Senate voted last year on the question of whether a resolution that came to the floor qualified for fast-track treatment under the War Powers Act. Schumer, however, argued on the floor that the procedural shell game couldn't obscure what he called a blatant end-run around the parliamentarian's earlier ruling that California's EV waivers do not qualify as a rulemaking eligible for review under the CRA. He accused Republicans of 'going nuclear' by breaking established Senate precedent. Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) then stood up on the Senate floor to argue that Republicans were twisting the facts to claim that it's an 'novel' question to ask whether EPA's waivers constitute a rulemaking that could be overturned by congressional resolution. 'The facts at heart here are quite simple. The waiver at issue is not a rule and was never a rule. Thirty years of precedent and practice at EPA and in this body prove that,' he said. Thune and other Senate Republicans, however, argued that it should be a matter for the Senate, not the parliamentarian to decide. Republican procedural experts say that it was common practice decades ago to refer difficult procedural questions to the Senate to decide as a body, instead of relying on the parliamentarian for advice. First Thune raised a point of order that 'points of order are in order under the Congressional Review Act' to allow the Senate to vote on the question of whether the waivers provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are eligible for disapproval under the CRA. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) made a motion to table Thune's point of order but it failed on a 46-52 vote. Then Schumer appealed the ruling by the Senate's presiding chair, who happened to be Capito, submitting the question of whether points of order are allowed under the CRA. That appeal was expected to also fail on a party-line vote. A Senate Republican source familiar with Thune's strategy said he will then offer a point of order to make the resolution disapproving of California's EV mandate eligible for fast-track consideration in the Senate. It is expected to pass. Once that's done, Senate Republicans are expected to pass Capito's resolution to overturn the highway traffic safety administration's rule for hydrogen vehicles. Then Thune will hold a vote on Capito's second CRA resolution, the disapproval to repeal California's EV waivers affecting gas-powered vehicles. Democrats won't have an opportunity to ask the parliamentarian to rule that the resolution is not eligible for fast-track treatment under the CRA because the Senate will have already decided that matter by voting on the point of order raised on the hydrogen vehicle-related resolution. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) argued that the elaborate floor moves won't change voters' minds that the Senate ignored the parliamentarian to help the fossil fuel industry. Blumenthal said Republicans wanted to avoid a vote on directly overruling the parliamentarian, but he declared 'it fails to give them anything more than a false fig leaf.'
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - We need a bipartisan Congress to check presidential power
It is no coincidence that the first article of the U.S. Constitution, the one the Framers prioritized, defines the powers of Congress, not the president. The Framers assumed Congress would play the leading role under the new constitution, as it had through the Continental Congress and the Confederation Congress. As Americans have witnessed since Jan. 20, the Framers assumed wrongly. And it is time to reassess what is best for the nation — the Framers' vision or the powers claimed by President Trump. In the 20th century and early in the 21st century, Congress ceded more power to the presidency in areas such as budget creation, diplomacy, war powers and law enforcement. Popular support accompanied those changes, particularly during the 1930s, the 1960s and the early 2000s as Americans demanded presidents 'get things done.' The first 100 days standard gained popular currency, which forced presidents to act quickly. Additionally, media coverage centered on the person of the president rather than the Congress. The latter appeared as an amorphous blob. No one could speak for the whole Congress. Disturbed by the excesses of the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations, Congress attempted to claw back some of its power through the War Powers Act, the Congressional Budget Act and the Impoundment Act. It also enacted the legislative veto that allowed Congress to override presidential actions, sometimes by doing nothing. But presidential power began to grow, particularly as divided government became more common. Presidents began to rely on executive orders to enact policy that formerly had been Congress' purview in areas such as gun control. Trump has taken presidential powers to another level entirely. He issued 26 executive orders on his first day. In his first hundred days, he signed 142. Plus, their scope is well beyond those of other presidents. They include gutting whole departments, cutting programs such as public television and public radio, ending DEI programs, authorizing massive immigrant deportation orders, and targeting individuals and corporations he felt harmed him. He has declared these orders are essential due to various national emergencies. The Framers established three branches of government to separate power, but also to check power held by each branch. Presidential power is now out of balance in relation to the other two branches. The trend has been going in that direction for many years, but now, with a president who is anxious to use such power, the effects of that imbalance are glaringly apparent. Some federal judges have checked presidential power by ruling that Trump's actions are unconstitutional or violate statutes. But the Trump administration is counting on the Supreme Court to back them up in most if not all the actions. However, the court may or may not do so, as indicated by its decision in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case directing the administration to facilitate his return. The question of whether to abide by the Supreme Court's decisions has rarely been a live one. But today it is, making many Americans wonder whether the judiciary will be an effective check on a rapacious president. Congress could and should check the president. Some members of Congress are working on legislation to do so. Others should join. But it cannot be partisan. One such recent example of a partisan effort was the Federalist Society's Article I Project, which targeted checking Democratic presidents but has been silent about Republican ones. Members of both parties need to come together to enact legislation that limits presidential powers regardless of who is president. The legislation should not be targeted at particular policies but at reining in presidential power generally to dictate economic policy, punish opponents or ignore congressional appropriations. Congressional Republicans would benefit since Congress would be checking a Democrat in the future and not just a Republican today. Members of Congress swore to uphold the Constitution. Preserving constitutional checks and balances to maintain our democratic system is a large part of that obligation. It is time for Congress to restore the balance in the Constitution the Framers so carefully crafted for our benefit. Richard Davis is a professor emeritus of political science at BYU. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
09-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
We need a bipartisan Congress to check presidential power
It is no coincidence that the first article of the U.S. Constitution, the one the Framers prioritized, defines the powers of Congress, not the president. The Framers assumed Congress would play the leading role under the new constitution, as it had through the Continental Congress and the Confederation Congress. As Americans have witnessed since Jan. 20, the Framers assumed wrongly. And it is time to reassess what is best for the nation — the Framers' vision or the powers claimed by President Trump. In the 20th century and early in the 21st century, Congress ceded more power to the presidency in areas such as budget creation, diplomacy, war powers and law enforcement. Popular support accompanied those changes, particularly during the 1930s, the 1960s and the early 2000s as Americans demanded presidents 'get things done.' The first 100 days standard gained popular currency, which forced presidents to act quickly. Additionally, media coverage centered on the person of the president rather than the Congress. The latter appeared as an amorphous blob. No one could speak for the whole Congress. Disturbed by the excesses of the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations, Congress attempted to claw back some of its power through the War Powers Act, the Congressional Budget Act and the Impoundment Act. It also enacted the legislative veto that allowed Congress to override presidential actions, sometimes by doing nothing. But presidential power began to grow, particularly as divided government became more common. Presidents began to rely on executive orders to enact policy that formerly had been Congress' purview in areas such as gun control. Trump has taken presidential powers to another level entirely. He issued 26 executive orders on his first day. In his first hundred days, he signed 142. Plus, their scope is well beyond those of other presidents. They include gutting whole departments, cutting programs such as public television and public radio, ending DEI programs, authorizing massive immigrant deportation orders, and targeting individuals and corporations he felt harmed him. He has declared these orders are essential due to various national emergencies. The Framers established three branches of government to separate power, but also to check power held by each branch. Presidential power is now out of balance in relation to the other two branches. The trend has been going in that direction for many years, but now, with a president who is anxious to use such power, the effects of that imbalance are glaringly apparent. Some federal judges have checked presidential power by ruling that Trump's actions are unconstitutional or violate statutes. But the Trump administration is counting on the Supreme Court to back them up in most if not all the actions. However, the court may or may not do so, as indicated by its decision in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case directing the administration to facilitate his return. The question of whether to abide by the Supreme Court's decisions has rarely been a live one. But today it is, making many Americans wonder whether the judiciary will be an effective check on a rapacious president. Congress could and should check the president. Some members of Congress are working on legislation to do so. Others should join. But it cannot be partisan. One such recent example of a partisan effort was the Federalist Society's Article I Project, which targeted checking Democratic presidents but has been silent about Republican ones. Members of both parties need to come together to enact legislation that limits presidential powers regardless of who is president. The legislation should not be targeted at particular policies but at reining in presidential power generally to dictate economic policy, punish opponents or ignore congressional appropriations. Congressional Republicans would benefit since Congress would be checking a Democrat in the future and not just a Republican today. Members of Congress swore to uphold the Constitution. Preserving constitutional checks and balances to maintain our democratic system is a large part of that obligation. It is time for Congress to restore the balance in the Constitution the Framers so carefully crafted for our benefit. Richard Davis is a professor emeritus of political science at BYU.
The Intercept
09-04-2025
- Politics
- The Intercept
Progressives Push to Assert Congress Power Over Yemen War
Progressives in Congress demanded that President Donald Trump justify his legal rationale for strikes in Yemen that caused dozens of deaths, teeing up a potential move to stop future attacks under the 1973 War Powers Act. Democrats would face long odds invoking congressional war powers to block Trump as long as Republicans control Congress, but a letter sent to the White House on Wednesday and obtained by The Intercept represents a break from the party's approach to the attacks against Yemen. Until now, Democrats have centered their critiques on the scandal over the administration's planning of a March 16 strike on the Signal messaging app. 'We call on your Administration to immediately cease unauthorized use of military force.' While progressives are still worried about the Trump administration's slipshod information security, they are also deeply concerned about what is happening in Yemen, says the letter led by Reps. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.; Ro Khanna, D-Calif.; and Val Hoyle, D-Ore., who were joined by 30 members. 'While we share concerns about maritime security in the Red Sea,' the representatives wrote, 'we call on your Administration to immediately cease unauthorized use of military force and instead seek specific statutory authorization from Congress before involving the U.S. in an unconstitutional conflict in the Middle East, which risks endangering U.S. military personnel in the region and escalating into a regime-change war.' Trump is under no obligation to respond to the letter. His administration has brushed aside critiques of the strikes' planning while touting the strikes themselves as a victory — despite signs that they have done little to deter the Houthis, the group ruling most of Yemen whose attacks in protest of Israel's war on Gaza have halted much of the maritime traffic through the Red Sea. The letter could lay the groundwork for a push from Democrats to end or curtail future strikes on Yemen. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The progressives' letter is not the first attempt in recent years to assert Congress's powers over U.S. involvement in Yemen's long-running, brutal war. In 2019, after a yearslong push from progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Congress passed a bipartisan measure under the War Powers Resolution meant to end the U.S. government's support for Saudi Arabia's bloody intervention in the Yemeni civil war. The Senate failed to override Trump's veto of that legislation. President Joe Biden continued U.S. involvement in the crisis in Yemen, launching strikes directed against military locations in response to Houthi attacks, which the group has said will continue until the end of the Gaza war. The strikes on densely packed urban areas in Yemen last month were an escalation from Biden's more contained attacks. Leaked messages from the administration Signal chat showed the war planners were aware of attacks on civilian targets, and there were internal concerns from Trump administration officials skeptical of foreign military interventions, such as Vice President JD Vance. The progressives' letter says the law requires presidents to go to Congress to receive either a declaration of war or other statutory authorization. The only exception is for a 'national emergency' involving an invasion — a situation the letter signatories note does not exist. The letter asks the Trump administration to give its legal justification for the strikes; to explain its response to the potential national security breach of the Signal messages sent to Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg; to estimate the costs of the strikes and explain how the administration will pay for them; and to explain why a top general claimed that there had been 'no indications of any civilian casualties' during an airstrike that left dozens dead. 'What steps, if any, are being taken to mitigate further civilian casualties?' the letter writers ask. The letter drew support from a coalition of progressive and anti-war groups including the American Friends Service Committee, Codepink, Demand Progress, the National Iranian American Council, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and Win Without War. 'Trump's deadly, unauthorized strikes violate the War Powers Act and the Constitution, and talk of reigniting a U.S.-Saudi backed ground war in Yemen threatens another looming disaster and endless war,' Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said in a statement. 'It's critical that hostilities stop and Congress reassert its role — just as the leads of this letter have called for under both Trump and Biden.'
