A War Powers Resolution is just window dressing. If it passes he'll veto it. It's a worthless tool anymore

[Cheezoholic]

Need 2/3rds to hold a presidents ass to the fire. Law needs changed along with ALL of the laws that have empowered the Executive beyond the founders intention over the last 50 years. Yeah, I know, wishful thinking.

[Lovie777]

1. Putting US soldiers in Iran .....................

per shithole, could change a lot of minds.

[Wednesdays]

4. In which case, there could be a response by Russia

And not in a good way. Tehran is just a couple hundred miles from Russian territory.

[Celerity]

5. No, it is farther than that.

The straight-line distance from Tehran, Iran, to the nearest Russian border (across the Caspian Sea) is approximately 400–500 miles to the Dagestan region, while the driving route through Azerbaijan is roughly 700–800 miles.

[Wednesdays]

6. The point is, that it's close.

[Celerity]

7. 'Close' or not, I highly, highly doubt Russia is going to directly attack US troops. That is playing with the fire of

global nuclear war.

[EdmondDantes_]

8. Except what indicator is there Putin would care given his relationship with Trump?

And given how much they are struggling to beat Ukraine, I don't think they are looking for war with the US.

And not like we can't launch attacks on them like we're doing to Iran already.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. Resolutions express a state of mind. I don't believe they are subject to a veto.

Trump can ignore it, at no cost to himself.

[EdmondDantes_]

3. It always has been

But Congress isn't interested in taking back the need to declare war. Partially for good reasons, partially for bad reasons.

The good reason being for some small scale actions, speed and secrecy is critical. For example Ford used the military to rescue the crew of a boat that had been captured by the Cambodian navy. Waiting to get Congressional approval would have let the victims be better secured. Or Obama making the decision to conduct the bin Laden raid into a sovereign country.

Obviously those are pretty limited circumstances where that matters, and as the kidnapping of Maduro shows it can easily be misused.

Then there's the bad reasons that Congress won't repeal it. They don't have to go on the record in case something goes wrong, and it gives them a great way to attack a president of the other party. Republicans attacked Obama for his use of the military without congressional approval for drone and missile attacks and now we're doing it to Trump. I'm not saying that the two situations are equal in their level, but if the principle is about Congress having to declare war, then they are both wrong.

But Congress is also hard pressed to take back their power because it's a lot harder to get a majority out of the 535 members of Congress compared to the president needing to decide their position. This is more true as government becomes more complex and as partisanship increases making it easier to shift responsibility to the president or the administrative state.

[bigtree]

9. it will just contain 'funding for the troops'

...which is what allowed successive presidents to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan for decades under a resolution which was exploited for myriad other military activities and actions in the region before it was ended just recently.

The most effective thing would be to try and dry the money up after 60 days under a Senate filibuster refusal to agree to cloture. If they do pass a resolution now that has some republican support, it won't likely tell him to just stop at this point, and it won't come with a veto-proof majority of votes.