418
Senate votes down measure aiming to limit Trump’s war powers by 53-47 vote
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
418 points (99.5% liked)
politics
31115 readers
2910 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This is dumb. There is no reason to vote on something that is already law. You're just letting them drag everything to the right.
He broke the law. If the law isn't being enforced, then we should begin actions stronger than legislation.
We need to make good trouble
It's very debatable whether he actually broke the law in this instance. Attacking Iran without congressional approval is allowed by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The argument against that is that the powers outlined in that resolution are meant to be "emergency powers" but "emergency powers" are very easy to invoke and I'm not aware of any precedent of a president not being permitted to invoke them. And the US hasn't formally declared war since WWII, so they're invoked fairly often.
Getting more clearly restrictive laws in place would be a good thing, and getting Republicans on record as opposing them is only mostly useless (look, it's a low bar) because it does at least make it a little harder for them to pass themselves off as "antiwar."
Ok well lets put him on trial and find out, he can be held in a prison cell till the court date is set
That's not how anything works.
Why? Finding out if the actions of any individual are criminal is usually a job for the courts, why not this?
So let me get this straight. You think that if someone, anyone really, thinks that the president might have violated a law, they should be immediately thrown in jail until it's resolved? Even the cleanest person in the world would be spending their entire term in a jail cell.