Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Freddie Stubbs

(29,853 posts)
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 03:07 PM Sep 2015

Hastings Introduces Resolution Authorizing Military Force Against Iran if Necessary

Source: Alcee Hastings

Hastings Introduces Resolution Authorizing Military Force Against Iran if Necessary to Prevent it from Obtaining Nuclear Weapons

oday, Representative Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL) introduced a joint resolution permitting the sitting President or his successors to use the armed forces of the United States, if necessary, to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. (Please find attached a copy of the resolution)

“On July 14, 2015, a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is used solely for peaceful purposes was finalized. With history as our guide, any agreement with the Iranian government must be met with skepticism, and therefore, backed up with muscularity – my legislation provides this muscularity.

“Indeed, the importance of an international framework that actually prohibits Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapons state cannot be overstated. As Ranking Democratic Member of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and the only American to have served as President of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE PA) Parliamentary Assembly, as well as a former member of both the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Committee on Foreign Affairs, I am acutely aware of the challenges in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program.

“Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon is a threat to the United States as well as our allies in the region, and its questionable sincerity in forgoing the procurement of such weapons has created legitimate cause for concern. It is my sincere hope that this resolution will provide the added hard power necessary to deter Iran from continued efforts to obtain nuclear weapons, including skirting compliance with the JCPOA, if implemented. I believe this legislation will send a clear message to the Iranian regime that the United States is willing to ensure that Iran never becomes a nuclear weapons state at any cost.”

Congressman Alcee L. Hastings serves as Senior Member of the House Rules Committee, Ranking Democratic Member of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, and Co-Chairman of the Florida Delegation.

###

Read more: http://alceehastings.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398484

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
2. I believe Hastings is voting against the Iran deal. Sounds like he really wants to use military
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 03:14 PM
Sep 2015

force. I don't think this resolution is necessary.

global1

(25,241 posts)
3. How Do You Think This Stuff Is Playing In Iran?......
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 03:15 PM
Sep 2015

or should we even care how it's playing?

We have half the government - the Repugs - against this Iran deal. We have Dems coming out against it and now this from Hastings.

How do you think Iran is interpreting all this?

24601

(3,959 posts)
4. Its an interesting move since, if it made it through the House, Senate Rules do not permit the
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 03:37 PM
Sep 2015

filibuster of an AUMF resolution. They can, however, be vetoed.

If Hastings really wanted to screw things up, he would introduce a Declaration of War since the Constitution grants exclusive war declaration power to Congress. Presidents have requested the Declaration in the 11 times Congress has voted it; however, that is not a constitutional requirement. Custom has been that we would then be in a state of war until it was concluded by a treaty, which has taken Senate Confirmation. President Obama would be under no obligation to direct any military action, but any future President could immediately act. There are also myriad provisions of existing laws that kick in whenever we are in a state of war and Presidents gain considerable power during times of declared war.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

 

Nihil

(13,508 posts)
10. True but it is just confirming established procedure and giving it a semi-legal facade.
Wed Sep 9, 2015, 07:44 AM
Sep 2015

It's not as if there have been no other murderous US military exploits *without* such
documentation in the past is it?


DFW

(54,339 posts)
8. "If necessary" Where have we heard this before?
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 04:32 PM
Sep 2015

Oh, yeah. The Iraq invasion resolution. The justification Dick Cheney used to justify invading Iraq. He presented fake evidence to Congress, who voted on an "if necessary" resolution (NOT a resolution to invade no matter what, btw) to invade Iraq, and then Cheney invaded, claiming it was necessary even though he knew perfectly well it was NOT.

Congress should table this "if necessary" crap. It leaves the door open for misuse. I'm not scared someone as conservative (as defined in English, not Foxese) as Obama would use it, but ANY of the current Republican crowd would leap at the chance, and that's one chance too many.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Hastings Introduces Resol...