About the War Powers Resolution—it’s more complicated than that.
First, joint resolutions require the approval of the president (except when they propose constitutional amendments); concurrent resolutions do not.
Statutes like the War Powers Resolution originally provided for the use of simple or concurrent resolutions, but that was held to be unconstitutional in INS v. Chadha.
Over time Congress amended similar statutes to require joint resolutions instead, but it left the War Powers Resolution as it was. Instead, in a separate statute (the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985) it created equivalent expedited procedures using a joint resolution *in the Senate only*.
Overall, there are now two separate sets of procedures: (1) using a concurrent resolution, available in both the House and Senate, but which is probably unconstitutional; and (2) using a joint resolution, which is privileged in the Senate only and can be vetoed by the president.
As a result of all that, Massie has submitted a concurrent resolution, and Kaine has introduced a joint resolution.
If Massie’s resolution were agreed to by the House and Senate, it would have no legal effect. If Kaine’s resolution were passed by the Senate, it would be difficult to get it considered in the House, and even if the House passed it too, Trump could veto it anyway.
I enjoy your column and your thoughtfulness and I hope this caveat might make it even better. Your article on Herman Kahn and his theory of a rational hierarchy of escalation in international relations has a major flaw that has led to some of our most disastrous outcomes. For example, in 1966, while a West Point cadet, my seminar class spent a day at the Hudson Institute where we discussed this type of escalation as it related to Viet Nam. We spent a long time discussing the rationale for each escalation, but in the end after pointing out a counter action each time, the panel of very learned academics concluded that “well, we will just bomb them back to the Stone Age!” And that is generally what we tried to do. The flaw is that people aren’t always rational in war, economics, personal relationships and anywhere else. We may paper over our irrationality with serious scholarly papers and seemly well reasoned solutions, but we usually have some opinion, ideology, personal quirk, or short term goal that will tilt our decision and often lead to an unwanted result.
Great to have you back, Gabe, and it almost seems like the universe decided to play a joke on us all by making your two-week absence as eventful as possible!
a) Trump didn’t dream up Operation Midnight Hammer, it was proposed to him by career military officials
b) Midnight Hammer was proposed because US intelligence assessed Iranian air defenses did not have the capability to bring down the B-2’s AND that the Iranian military has very limited options to retaliate against the US
Welcome back, Gabe. You've been missed.
On a different issue, is the reporting credible about the voting machines in the 7 swing states being hacked by Musk, et al?
I've heard that too. Not just Musk but several exceptional coders one being part of Doge group.
Looks like conspiracy meat for the left to me, but really hoping Gabe will take a look and interpret it.
About the War Powers Resolution—it’s more complicated than that.
First, joint resolutions require the approval of the president (except when they propose constitutional amendments); concurrent resolutions do not.
Statutes like the War Powers Resolution originally provided for the use of simple or concurrent resolutions, but that was held to be unconstitutional in INS v. Chadha.
Over time Congress amended similar statutes to require joint resolutions instead, but it left the War Powers Resolution as it was. Instead, in a separate statute (the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985) it created equivalent expedited procedures using a joint resolution *in the Senate only*.
Overall, there are now two separate sets of procedures: (1) using a concurrent resolution, available in both the House and Senate, but which is probably unconstitutional; and (2) using a joint resolution, which is privileged in the Senate only and can be vetoed by the president.
As a result of all that, Massie has submitted a concurrent resolution, and Kaine has introduced a joint resolution.
If Massie’s resolution were agreed to by the House and Senate, it would have no legal effect. If Kaine’s resolution were passed by the Senate, it would be difficult to get it considered in the House, and even if the House passed it too, Trump could veto it anyway.
In more detail: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R47603/R47603.11.pdf
This was in response to DocOnTheRange
a. I really doubt the Joint Chiefs would have recommended a first strike. It has been US policy for many, many years that we do not strike first.
b. Iran has many ways to retaliate that do not involve traditional military action.
Hope you had a relaxing blast, Gabe!
Didn't Trump abandon the earlier Iranian plutonium enrichment monitoring program?
Perhaps he thought he could just make a deal if anything went wrong.
War is not the answer (as the song says).
"President Trump will meet with his national security team." Wait what? He's got a national security team?
Welcome back!
Welcome back! Missed you!!
I enjoy your column and your thoughtfulness and I hope this caveat might make it even better. Your article on Herman Kahn and his theory of a rational hierarchy of escalation in international relations has a major flaw that has led to some of our most disastrous outcomes. For example, in 1966, while a West Point cadet, my seminar class spent a day at the Hudson Institute where we discussed this type of escalation as it related to Viet Nam. We spent a long time discussing the rationale for each escalation, but in the end after pointing out a counter action each time, the panel of very learned academics concluded that “well, we will just bomb them back to the Stone Age!” And that is generally what we tried to do. The flaw is that people aren’t always rational in war, economics, personal relationships and anywhere else. We may paper over our irrationality with serious scholarly papers and seemly well reasoned solutions, but we usually have some opinion, ideology, personal quirk, or short term goal that will tilt our decision and often lead to an unwanted result.
Missed your thoughtful writing, Gabe. Hope your time away was good. Great to have you back!
Great summary. Welcome back!
Great to have you back, Gabe, and it almost seems like the universe decided to play a joke on us all by making your two-week absence as eventful as possible!
Welcome back, Gabe.
I have some hunches:
a) Trump didn’t dream up Operation Midnight Hammer, it was proposed to him by career military officials
b) Midnight Hammer was proposed because US intelligence assessed Iranian air defenses did not have the capability to bring down the B-2’s AND that the Iranian military has very limited options to retaliate against the US
Your report on Fordow was helpful. We may not know for a long time exactly how effective the strike was. Please read my latest post on the federal debt crisis. https://tommast.substack.com/p/sustainable-fiscal-discipline-what?r=b29s7 Tom Mast