Question...can congress pass a resolution saying that the Iraq

[Sperk]

resolution DOES NOT INCLUDE other countries? A premptive resolution, if you will. Stating that the Pres. MUST come to congress if he wants to attack Iran?

[Rosco T.]

1. could.. but won't n/m

[Richard Steele]

2. We already have that. It's called "The Constitution". And it's meaningless

Because DictatorTot does whatever the hell he wants,
legal or not,
and Congress and US Law are completely IRRELEVANT to the process.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Not only that but unfortunately the war powers act

gives the president the power to go have a war and then report back to congress that he has done so.

Basically the planet is at the mercy of a messianic numbskull. This is not a good situation. Best to keep our powder dry for a real emergency though.

[MuseRider]

4. DictatorTot?

That is pretty good. I like it. Thanks, I had not heard that one. Did you come up with that?

[Richard Steele]

10. I don't think I did....

It just popped into my head as I was typing;
I suspect I have seen it before, but I have no idea where.

The Giggling MurderMonkey has so many nicknames,
it's just hard to keep up with them all, y'know?

[Rosco T.]

8. DictatorTot? as in Pol Pot?? More like ShitPot.... n/m

[Trajan]

5. They can, and they should ....

Furthermore: IF the Democrats take control of both houses: expect a radically different approach to presidential powers in wartime ..... that, as well as impeachment proceedings ....

Er .... wait .... nevermind ....

[paul_fromatlanta]

6. Resolutions are non-binding - it would take a law

A modification of the war powers act, for example.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. They need to pass a law

that is veto proof

[jody]

9. * would veto such a resolution and it would probably be veto proof.

Suggest you scan "The Legislative Veto" for a concise summary of such actions.

[hootinholler]

11. That would be viewed as an admission that the IWR allows unlimited war.

Bad move if the new law doesn't survive a veto.

Just sayin.
-Hoot