Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) criticized U.S.-led strikes on Yemen, saying they were “an unacceptable violation of the Constitution.”

“Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress,” Jayapal added in her post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, late Thursday.

Other Democrats, including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), also criticized the strikes.

  • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    11 months ago

    Per the article, this military action falls under the War Powers Act.

    The Act requires the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of military action and requires the termination of military action within 60 days of its commencement if Congress has not officially declared war or authorized the military action.

    These rebels have been attacking shipping, including US warships making this a defensive action. In addition, Congress was notified within 48 hours and 60 days have not yet passed. While I personally oppose further involvement in the middle-east, pretending that this is a violation of the Constitution is absurd. This crap has been going on since the War Powers Act was passed in 1973. If these legislatures don’t like it, then they are well within their rights to repeal the War Powers Act or get SCOTUS to rule it unconstitutional.

    Of course, they won’t do that though. That might keep the president from bombing the people that they want bombed.

    • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yup, Congress hasnt declared war since WW2 and every “war” since then has been an “operation” or some such language.

      • admiralteal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        No, that’s not true.

        Almost all of the US “war” action in your lifetime has been fully authorized by Congress under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

        Only one member of Congress voted against it, as I recall, and she lost her election for doing it. She voted against it because it was way too broad and expansive and would be able to justify nearly any intervention with no sunset date. She was 100% right.

          • admiralteal@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            What’s your point, then, if not to imply that these military activities since the war powers act have been happening without congressional approval – something that is simply not true?

            If there’s a misconception about war declaration being spread around here, it’s the idea that a war declaration is somehow necessary – or even important – as part of the process of conducting warlike activities. That’s just now how it works in the modern world. Modern countries do not declare war on other countries. They engage indirectly or develop legal pretenses about how it’s just some specific organization they are targeting or goal being achieved.

            • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Ive never implied anything about circumventing Congress, you keep shoehorning that into this discussion for some reason.

              The 2nd paragraph is spot on, and your last sentence is exactly what im trying to convey as well. Thanks fam.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      There’s an argument that the war powers act is unconstitutional, but it will likely never actually get challenged.

      The more fun fact is that if Biden continues action past 60 days, he will be the third consecutive Democratic president to violate the war powers act.