The U.S. Senate joined the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday in passing a war-powers resolution. The resolution directs President Trump to remove U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran unless Congress expressly authorizes their continued use. The measure passed 50-48, with four Republicans — Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Rand Paul of Kentucky — joining all Democrats in support. Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Dave McCormick (R-PA) did not vote.
The vote gives Democrats an apparent victory to tout in the headlines, but its significance is primarily symbolic.
It is, in fact, the first time both chambers successfully passed a war-powers resolution directing a president to halt military action since the War Powers Resolution was enacted in 1973. Beyond the sting of political rebuke that it appears to deliver to President Trump, however, there are several obstacles preventing the resolution from carrying any real weight.
Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Powers Resolution states that when U.S. forces are engaged in hostilities without a declaration of war or specific authorization, “such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.” On paper, it appeared to give Congress a direct route to prevent the country from engaging in military action and bypassing the president’s signature to do so.
A decade later, the Supreme Court disagreed.
In 1983, the Court held in INS v. Chadha that Congress cannot enact legislation that affects the duties of parties outside the legislative branch without satisfying the Constitution’s requirements of bicameralism and presentment. In plain English, Congress cannot just sneak legislation into effect because it passed both chambers. It still must be presented to the president for his signature or veto before it carries the force of law.
The passage of a war-powers resolution is a historic novelty that draws attention and sounds imposing, but unless Congress proceeds through a legally cleaner method, such as a joint resolution, it will not go to Trump’s desk or have binding force. The White House’s statement did not treat the measure as binding, arguing that “concurrent resolutions such as H. Con. Res. 86 lack the force of law and should be deemed unconstitutional legislative vetoes under controlling Supreme Court precedent.”
The Senate vote was 50-48, with two Republican absences. The House passed the measure 215-208. If Congress tries to use a joint resolution, the two-thirds support needed in both chambers to override a presidential veto is simply not there.
That leaves the resolution in an awkward place. It is enough to make a statement, but not nearly enough to carry weight. Democrats can say both chambers voted to rein in Trump’s Iran policy. They can even point to a handful of Republican defectors and call it a “bipartisan rebuke.” But the resolution does nothing on its own to force the president’s hand.
The resolution may sting politically, but as a legal constraint, it is far less impressive than it sounds. Democrats will get their media victory lap, but Trump has plenty of room to ignore it.
READ MORE from Henry Zavalick:
