Representative Al Green, a Texas Democrat, officially introduced new Articles of Impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday.

“In starting his illegal and unconstitutional war with Iran without the constitutionally mandated consent of Congress or appropriate notice to Congress, President Trump acted in direct violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution,” Green’s articles state.

“President Trump has devolved and continues to devolve American democracy into authoritarianism by disregarding the separation of powers and now usurping congressional war powers.”

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Round 3.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    shield
    M
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    World is not for US News.

    Trump attacks Iran - World News

    Democrats theeaten Trump with impeachment when Republicans control both the House anf the Senate? - Internal US news.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Maybe I’m remembering wrong, but hasn’t the U.S. gone to war without congressional approval a bunch of times?

    • gnutrino@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Yeah the US hasn’t offically gone to war with since WWII and plenty of military actions haven’t had any sort of congressional approval.

      For all the bollocks Trump has done, this one actually has a very strong precedent and will go nowhere (as hilarious as it would be for something serval presidents have done before him to be the thing to finally bring him down).

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      Yes, no, technically, its complicated, because we just… don’t call it a ‘war’ if most of Congress doesn’t have a problem with whatever military action the President has unilaterally directed.

      Russia has ‘special military operation’, we have ‘temporary, low level peacekeeping operations’… that then become the Vietnam War and last for over a decade… or… Congress has authorized the use of force to go get the Taliban in Afghanistan, but also uh, we’re gonna stay there 20 years, with no clear or coherent goal or strategy.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

      Basically, uh, War is supposed to only be declared by the Congress, and then the President is supposed to execute said war.

      But also, the Preisdent can kinda sorta do some limited military actions without first having a formal Declaration of War… and there isn’t total agreement on what exactly those limits are… basically, almost everytime this happens in American history, it nearly causes a Constitutional crisis, or at the very least, a whole bunch of vigorous debate, and there really is no consistent framework or metric for evaluating whether or not the President did something not allowed, at least when looking backwards at history.

      It becomes both a political and legal shitshow every time.

      And also, Congress can… authorize the use of military force, with strings attached, limitations… but somehow that is technically not a war, and also there’s no actual mechanism for tugging on those strings and actually enforcing those limitations.

      It’s all very straightforward you see, rofl.

  • crimsonpoodle@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    I think this is dumb— not because he shouldn’t do it— or that it shouldn’t be illegal— but all the presidents since Bush Jr have used the same vague authorizations for fighting terrorism to justify strikes all over the Middle East and Africa— so there is precedent even if stupid precedent. Instead congress should just rescind those articles and take back their war declaration power. Except that they would also have to revoke the 1950s document that lets the president basically carry on a war for 60 days… it’s stupid, but I don’t see impeachment for this offense possible and just weakens the threat for the future. But maybe it’s already toast.

    • nomy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Did you make this? This is a really nice reference and is pretty much what I was thinking, well done.

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Quote for reference:

      Senator John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat, told Fox News’ America’s Newsroom: “He’s been impeached twice, and now he’s still our president as well now too. It’s not going anywhere, and I don’t think that’s helpful. I think if you throw that term around that actually diminishes the severity of what impeachment is really reserved for.”

      You know what else diminishes the severity of impeachment? Not impeaching impeachable conduct.

    • JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      I think if you throw that term around that actually diminishes the severity of what impeachment is really reserved for.

      He’s selling the Republican playbook

    • Stamau123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      “B-B-But they already tried before with his other crimes, they can’t try again with new ones!”

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Well shit, I was so quick on the draw with this one that they wrote the actual article after I posted it, fuck!

      Anyway yeah, great to see CTE brainmushed minds think alike.

      Fetterman unironically needs to be impeached or recalled or indefinitely deployed to a retirement home as well, the dude very, very clearly has significant cognitive impairment going on.

  • nthavoc@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    They know this won’t pass the Senate if it even passes the house. It’s just keeping up appearances I guess. Kind of like how they held up signs like Wild E. Coyote does when his plans go to shit.

  • dastanktal@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Just because we know it won’t get through doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying to push impeachment articles as often as possible.

    I mean it only took like two or three Democrat deaths to swing the house in the Republican direction so that the Republicans can get some shit through that could always happen the other way around because the gerontocracy is on both sides

  • MaxPow3r11@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    this will get him for sure this time…

    if not…

    maybe the next one…

    or like…

    maybe if he’s arrested/a felon…

    what’s that you’re saying…

    edit: MatrixCatDejaVu.gif

  • Final Remix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    It’s already been shot down though.

    A majority of Democrats even voted to not even discuss the articles. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      I think you are talking about when they tried to bring up impeachment last month.

      Unless… you have a source from within like the last 3 or 4 hours of a bunch of them saying that for this current attempt.

      • Final Remix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Yeah, it’s been posted. The vote took less than 2 hours. 128 dems voted to table it without discussion.

      • unalivejoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        From the updated article

        A vote to table the impeachment articles passed by a 344-79 margin, with 128 Democrats joining Republicans for the vote. House Democratic leadership has thus far been wary of impeachment efforts from some members, and Green’s latest push did not receive support from leadership.