It's not legally unreasonable to continue acting under a Congressional authorization passed 17 or 18 years ago, but it's politically ridiculous for Congress to not revisit the question of who we're at war with for decades on end.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Of course, the rule for war powers in Washington is the same as the rule for anything in Washington: all power resides with whichever side doesn't need to get Congress to do something in order to get what it wants.
Show this thread -
This is the opposite of what the Framers intended, on any front: they envisioned a federal government that does nothing without active & ongoing approval by Congress.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Rand Paul has proposed to end the AUMF multiple times, in '17 it only got 35 votes.
-
If they pass anything it won't be an ending of the AUMF, at most some sort of revision or clarification. We aren't leaving Afghanistan or Iraq or any of the other dozen countries we're in.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.