Reps. Gabbard and Jones To Hold Bipartisan Press Conference on Resolution To End Presidential Wars

Media Advisory for July 18—Reps. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) and Walter Jones (NC-03), along with retired U.S. Marine Captain Matthew Hoh, constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein, Veterans for Peace, and Peace Action, will hold a press conference on Wednesday announcing their introduction of a bipartisan resolution to reclaim Congress’s constitutional right to declare war. H.Res. 922 would define presidential wars not declared by Congress as impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Contact: Lauren McIlvaine (Gabbard): 202-713-6040
Allison Tucker (Jones): 202-225-3415

Wednesday, July 18, 2018: 11:00am EST
House Triangle, U.S. Capitol

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
Rep. Walter Jones (NC-03)
U.S. Marine Captain Matthew Hoh
Bruce Fein, Constitutional Lawyer
Michael Marceau, Veterans for Peace
Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action

Event also via Facebook Live: @RepTulsiGabbard and @RepWalterBJones

17 thoughts on “Reps. Gabbard and Jones To Hold Bipartisan Press Conference on Resolution To End Presidential Wars”

  1. This would be wonderful, but I cannot see how it would ever be enacted by Congress, much less signed into law by a President of either major party.

    1. Sure, great idea, low probabilty, but, it puts our reps on record, and that is important. As long as the executives won’t find peace, Congress must try and do the job.

      1. It won’t put our reps “on record” because it will get buried in committee and never get to a floor vote.

      1. All documents voted on by the US Congress are blobs of works strung together. Should a resolution be passed and enacted after due discussion it may be used as a tool even if it not a formal law. Given the poor state of definition of the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” I think that such a resolution would be very useful going forward.

        1. Absolutely. I’m just pointing out that it’s not an act that needs a presidential signature. Actually, I was incorrect, in that a simple resolution is a bill, but it is not one that becomes law. This one is a House Resolution and it comes into effect upon passage by the House. If it was to require the Senate to pass it as well, it would have to be either a concuurrent resolution, or a joint resolution (which would indeed require the presidential signature).

  2. Can we skip the formalities and just declare Jones and Gabbard, or if you prefer, Gabbard and Jones, to be our next president and vice president? They’re not perfect, but at least they seem capable of learning.

    1. I suspect that neither major party would nominate a non-interventionist for President. I think George McGovern was the last, and only, person in my lifetime even close to non-interventionist who was nominated by a major party. The Democrats would never do that again, and certainly not the Republicans. It seems, more and more, that being a pawn of the MIC is now a requirement for getting nominated.

      But, you are correct, we can dream.

    2. Unfortunately, but realistically, Jones is too old — which is why he’s retiring in 2021 at the conclusion of the next congressional term.

  3. A major problem will be how to define “war”. Was Trump’s strike against Syria for allegedly using chemicals against its own people a “war”? That doesn’t seem to rise to the level expected of a war. OTOH, G. W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq should surely qualify as a war, but it was made with some kind of authorization of force by the Congress.

    1. Another interesting example is the sinking of the USS Liberty by Israeli armed forces. This was clearly a war-like act, but it seems unlikely that Israel would intentionally attack a military ship of its biggest supporter. Israel conceded it sank the ship, supposedly by mistake, but who really knows, probably only some survivors of the attack and the officers who actually ordered it. Was it an act of war or just an extremely unfortunate incident? It could have been either, but neither the US nor Israel called it a “war”.

Comments are closed.