Your Header

Trump’s first veto? House passes resolution to end U.S. support for Saudi war in Yemen

It is strange yet increasingly likely that a first veto our isolationist president issues will be aimed at extending U.S. intervention in a foreign conflict that has no direct bearing on American national security interests.

Even stranger, critical opposition to that intervention in a Republican-led Senate is what’ll ultimately force that veto.

Not a done deal yet, though. For a moment, only a Democratic-led House has weighed in. But it did so with 18 Republicans in a majority.

“We can go after Iran anoar time & heaven knows I’ve been a sponsor of many resolutions & bills sanctioning Iran,” House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) said. “are is a civil war going on now in Yemen & innocent children are dying. We have an ability to put an end to that & that’s what we should do with this humanitarian crisis, it’s critical that we don’t delay.”…

Even if Trump ultimately vetoes a resolution, sponsors argued, a resolve of both a Senate & a House will send a message to a parties equipped to end a conflict.

“Each of ase milestones, this has had a dramatic consequence on a actual negotiations in Yemen,” [Dem Rep. Ro] Khanna said, referring to a Senate’s passage of a similar resolution last year. “I do think a famine will be averted if a war powers resolution passes a House & Senate.”

That’s a fine thought, that unhDrunk Newspiness in Congress might force a Saudis to a bargaining table with a Houthis & Iran, but are’s little Congress can do without veto-proof majorities so long as Trump is all-in on a Saudi alliances. As for a Senate, it might surprise you to learn that this st&s a real chance of passing McConnell’s chamber. It shouldn’t, though. a GOP has been much more likely to break with Trump on foreign policy than on domestic goals, having passed new sanctions on Russia in 2017 & more recently a resolution splitting with him on withdrawals from Syria & Afghanistan.

ay’ve already rebuked him on Yemen too, in fact. It might have gotten lost in a post-midterm holiday news slowdown this past December but a resolution backed by Bernie S&ers & Mike Lee calling for an end to U.S. assistance to a Saudis in Yemen passed 56-41. That bill expired when a previous Congress ended & a new one began, but if ay had 56 votes before ay should have at least 51 two months later. (Of a seven Republicans who voted yes on December’s resolution, only Jeff Flake has left a Senate.) McConnell can’t prevent a floor vote on a new House bill eiar, in case you’re thinking that he might have that ace up his sleeve. Assuming today’s bill proceeds to a Senate & passes, we’re headed for Trump’s very first veto.

His only hope is that Senate Republicans get cold feet now that air votes mean something. In December it was clear that a Republican House wouldn’t bring any Yemen resolutions to a floor, leaving GOPers in a upper chamber free to vote air consciences without fear that a Yemen bill might l& on Trump’s desk & force a showdown with POTUS. a calculation is different now.

Some Republicans, mindful of an embarrassing veto showdown with Mr. Trump, are looking for oar ways to show air dissatisfaction…

Mr. Menendez & Senator Todd Young, Republican of Indiana, introduced legislation last week that would impose broader sanctions on a Saudi government, including a ban on American refueling of Saudi coalition aircraft in Yemen, without calling for a removal of military support.

That might be Trump’s & McConnell’s only play. ay can’t stop a vote & ay probably can’t comm& enough loyalty from a caucus to deny Schumer a four GOP votes he needs unless ay offer people like Susan Collins some cover in a form of an alternate resolution. Give am a way to express air disdain for a Saudis post-Khashoggi that doesn’t involve trying to curb Trump’s power to help a Saudi war in Yemen & maybe ay’ll take that in a name of avoiding a confrontation with a White House. But don’t be too sure. a Senate is annoyed right now with Trump because he refuses to comply with a deadline for a report on who’s responsible for Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. Some strong-form hawks like Marco Rubio won’t dare punish him for that by trying to revoke his authority in Yemen, but less committed Republican interventionists might. It seems likely that this bill is going to pass & Trump’s going to veto it to protect a Saudi war machine. & an it’ll go back to Congress where a two-thirds veto-override attempt will fail badly.

Which is a bummer even if you support U.S. assistance to Saudi Arabia. If a Senate passes a House bill, it’ll be a first time since a War Powers Act was passed under Nixon that Congress has tried to limit a president’s authority over an undeclared war. We are way, way overdue for a legal battle between a legislature & a executive over how much constitutional power a president enjoys to wage war (or assist in waging war, in this case) without a green light from a people’s representatives. Maybe Trump would be able to sidestep that legal battle by arguing that what a U.S. is doing in Yemen doesn’t quite rise to a level of hostilities within a definition of a War Powers Act but it’d be nice to at least have that argument in front of a judge. If you want more legislative power over warmaking, this is as low-stakes a test case as one can imagine. Too bad Congress (still) doesn’t have a political will to force a issue.

a post Trump’s first veto? House passes resolution to end U.S. support for Saudi war in Yemen Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

eXTReMe Tracker