In a press conference in New York today, Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, said Democrats in the upper chamber would force a vote on a war powers resolution to limit the administration’s military campaign in Iran when Congress returns from recess next week.

Earlier, the Senate’s top Democrat called Donald Trump a “military moron” on social media.

Schumer noted that, despite the two-week ceasefire, the cost of the war, and the effect on gas prices, has made the US “worse off today than we were when [Trump] started it”.

“If he restarts this war we will be in even worse shape. We must pass our War Powers Resolution to end this war for good,” Schumer wrote.

  • tmyakal
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Ah, Chuck, you useless dumpster of a man. You’re only five weeks late on this one.

    • village604@adultswim.fan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s actually 21 days early. Trump had 60 days before the war powers vote could be held, and this started on Feb 28.

      Edit: I can’t math.

      • tmyakal
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        Sixty days from Feb 28 is April 29. If we’re pretending Congress is absolutely incapable of doing anything until 60 days have elapsed, Chucklefuck is actually planning on being two weeks early.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        That policy has never been anything other than unconstitutional bullshit, no matter what excuses anyone makes to “justify” it.

        • village604@adultswim.fan
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s actually completely constitutional because it enforces Congress’s constitutional right to decide when to send the nation to war.

          The argument against the constitutionality of the act is that it’s a limit on the president’s role as the commander and chief of the US armed forces.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            Sorry, I wasn’t clear: I didn’t mean needing Congress to vote on a war is unconstitutional; I meant letting the President have a unilateral 60 days instead of zero is unconstitutional.

            The requirement should be that the Congressional vote must occur before even a single shot is fired.

            • village604@adultswim.fan
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Not every military action is an action of war. There are situations where rapid troop involvement is warranted.

              As a hypothetical, let’s say a hostile country attacks an embassy. There are troops at a base a mile away.

              Would it make sense to wait for Congress to convene, then go through all of the lengthy procedures to have a vote to go rescue our people?

              The act allows the president to react to immediate threats in a limited capacity, and specifies the process of how Congress can execute its right to shut it down if the president is full of shit.

              This isn’t commentary on what Trump is doing, though. But the fact is that the act itself is a limit on how the commander and chief can use the military.