Originally appeared on The American Conservative.
The House passed two amendments to the defense authorization bill yesterday related to the war on Yemen. The first prohibited the administration from using funds to support the Saudi coalition:
But the most consequential amendments on Thursday continued Congress’s months-long effort to intervene in the Yemen conflict and punish Saudi Arabia for the murder of the dissident Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.
Lawmakers voted 236 to 193 to prohibit the administration from using funds to support the Saudi-led military operations – either with munitions or with intelligence – against the Houthis in Yemen, a conflict that has killed thousands of civilians and resulted in a widespread famine in what the United Nations calls the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
The other amendment blocked the arms sales related to the bogus “emergency” declared by the Trump administration:
In an answer to the administration’s decision in May to declare an emergency over Iran in order to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates against Congress’s wishes, the House on Thursday voted 246 to 180 on a measure by Representative Ted Lieu, Democrat of California, to block those sales. The emergency declaration infuriated lawmakers from both parties in both the House and the Senate.
The passage of the amendment on arms sales shows that majorities in both houses are clearly opposed to Trump’s abuse of power in declaring the phony “emergency” to provide Saudi Arabia and the UAE with more weapons. The Senate had previously passed resolutions of disapproval to oppose these arms sales and the president’s attempt to circumvent Congress. The passage of the amendment barring the use of funds to support the Saudi coalition shows that the House majority is not giving up on the effort to end U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen.
Opposition to the war hasn’t waned, and thanks to Rep. Ro Khanna the House keeps rebuking Trump over his shameful ongoing support for the Saudi coalition. The House has proven it is willing to use the power of the purse to halt US involvement in an unauthorized foreign war, and that is an important reassertion of a Congressional power that usually lies dormant when it comes to our government’s illegal wars. There is a chance that these amendments will survive in the final bill after the House and Senate reconcile their different versions, and if that happens Trump would have to veto the entire defense authorization bill to continue enabling the Saudi coalition’s atrocious war.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at The American Conservative, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter. This article is reprinted from The American Conservative with permission.
14 thoughts on “The House Rebukes Trump on Yemen Again”
I still don’t understand how Trump could veto the War Powers resolution Congress previously passed to end US forces participating in the war against the Houthis. How can Trump veto this resolution when he doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to be there in the first place? There needs to be a lawsuit to bring this to the Courts to confirm that a US President does not have the Constitutional authority to veto a War Powers Resolution passed by Congress that explicitly states that that president must stop the executive branch from participating in an overseas war. Am very surprised no one seems to be pursuing this.
Blame congress for granted this power and not thinking about the future consequences when a “rouge” president decides to do the unthinkable.
No one cared when Obama partook in the same genocide.
Oh, some people did.
This is why congress is attempting to end the war on terror authorization in the same bill.
That would be enormous.
” How can Trump veto this resolution when he doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to be there in the first place?”
Because those are two completely different issues.
The president of the United States can veto any legislation (and Congress can override that veto with a 2/3 vote).
The president violating the Constitution isn’t something that’s handled by legislation, it’s something that’s handled by either litigation or impeachment.
Another factor: The President has been given power to negotiate trade and to declare war. He’s allowed neither power, but both have been given him, as if such were allowed. Trade is more formal, but in practice, he can do about anything he wants with foreign policy. Neither is acceptable.
Raimondo wrote, maybe in a tweet, that he wasn’t surprised by Trump standing with one of his few foreign allies (Saudis) in Yemen, but I believe this to be enormously foolish.
Trump was elected in part on opposing foreign wars and having common sense. Then he embraces a genocide? It’s political suicide.
Wait, wait, wait?… Congress did something right? No way. Not possible. I must have mixed up my Valium with my microdots again.
Watch Bernie. He was against the genocide, so it was clear opposition was OK.
Similarly, Bernie did not want talks with NK and wanted Assad removed. Bernie goes as far anti-war as the Establishment will allow, which isn’t far.
He’s always been Pro-Democrat wars and Anti-Republican wars. He pretends to be an independent but he’s really just a neutered lapdog of the DNC.
You don’t think he’s also pro-Israeli?
Absolutely, but I think his main motivation is to empower the party. That’s how social democrats operate. Just ask Rosa Luxemburg.
Comments are closed.