U.S. Senate upholds Trump veto of 'insulting' Iran war powers resolution

[webfact]

U.S. Senate upholds Trump veto of 'insulting' Iran war powers resolution

By Patricia Zengerle

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks before signing a proclamation in honor of National Nurses Day in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S., May 6, 2020. REUTERS/Tom Brenner

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate failed on Thursday to override President Donald Trump's veto of a resolution that would have reined in his ability to wage war against Iran by requiring him to obtain congressional authorization for military action.

 

The vote was 49-44 in favor of the resolution, but that fell short of the two-thirds majority, or 67 votes, needed to override a veto in the 100-member Senate.

 

The resolution, led by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, had passed the Republican-led Senate and Democratic-led House of Representatives earlier this year with support from Democrats and Republicans despite Trump's opposition.

 

Trump vetoed it on Wednesday, calling it "very insulting" and accusing Democrats of pursuing the matter for political reasons, although the measure was introduced by some of Trump's fellow Republicans, as well as Democrats.

 

Kaine responded by saying that Congress is doing its job by trying to assert its authority to weigh in on the use of military force.

 

"It is not a partisan effort. It was bipartisan from the very beginning," Kaine told reporters on a conference call before the vote.

 

"It was introduced to stop a rush to an unnecessary war," he said.

 

Trump also contended that, as commander in chief he needed to retain broad authority for military action against Iran. Trump withdrew the United States in 2018 from the international nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic reached under his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, and has been waging a "maximum pressure" campaign against the Tehran government.

 

The war powers resolution was introduced weeks after Trump ordered a strike in January that killed top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad's airport. The strike in Iraq raised fears of renewed conflict in the Middle East and frustrated members of Congress from both parties who said they were not sufficiently briefed on the decision.

 

It was the seventh veto of Trump's three-year-long presidency. None has been overridden. Trump's fellow Republicans, who hold a 53 to 47-seat majority in the Senate, rarely break with the president.

 

The measure would require Trump to remove U.S. troops engaged in hostilities against Iran unless Congress declares war or passes a specific authorization for the use of military force.

 

It was the latest in a series of recent efforts by lawmakers from both parties - during Obama's presidency as well as under Trump - to wrest back Congress' constitutional right to declare war.

 

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Lisa Lambert and Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-05-08

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[robblok]

Seems there are still smart people left in the US, unfortunately not enough of them. Its a smart thing to make sure Donald can't start a war. Right now he needs a war or something else to make sure he can win the election. Its not looking good so he needs a distraction. A war is just what might save him. (worked in the past)

 

The majority of people voting for curbing his power shows that there are still some smart people around. Too bad its not 2/3. 

 

Lets hope he is not as selfish as i think.

[Baerboxer]

8 hours ago, robblok said:

Seems there are still smart people left in the US, unfortunately not enough of them. Its a smart thing to make sure Donald can't start a war. Right now he needs a war or something else to make sure he can win the election. Its not looking good so he needs a distraction. A war is just what might save him. (worked in the past)

 

The majority of people voting for curbing his power shows that there are still some smart people around. Too bad its not 2/3. 

 

Lets hope he is not as selfish as i think.

 

Always dangerous to allow one single person such authority.

 

But I doubt President Xi, Kim Jong Un, Vlad Putin have any such constraints too. And that's very worrying.

[JCauto]

22 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Always dangerous to allow one single person such authority.

 

But I doubt President Xi, Kim Jong Un, Vlad Putin have any such constraints too. And that's very worrying.

Righhhhhhtttttt. 

So when Obama was President, you'd have been okay for him to expand his Presidential powers further? You guys just make me laugh, tell us again about the sacred Constitution you're so attached to - so attached that you'll toss it in the trash for this guy, of all people?