Those expecting Bernie Sanders’ agenda are sorely disappointed.
If a global pandemic and economic crisis weren’t enough excitement . . . .
The House of Representatives passed a defense spending bill that seeks to limit Presidential authority when it comes to striking Iran and aideing the Saudi war on Yemen.
While he campaigned on a message of restraint, Donald Trump has largely adopted the interventionist foreign policies of his predecessors.
Former Vice-President Joe Biden is calling for an end to American support for the Saudi war on Yemen.
Having lost to him, she’s an ineffective voice on the matter of Donald Trump.
The Wall Street Journal tries, and fails, to defend President Trump’s indefensible veto of the Congressional resolution regarding the war on Yemen.
President Trump has not surprisingly vetoed a Congressional resolution to limit American support for the Saudi war on Yemen. His defense for doing so is utterly absurd.
The Constitution’s invitation to struggle over foreign policy continues.
Instead of merely seeking to block the President’s declaration of an “emergency” at the southern border, Congress should instead significantly amend the National Emergencies Act.
There is a bit of a disjuncture between the terminology and the reality (but that does not excuse Trump’s current actions).
In a rare display of assertiveness in the foreign policy arena, the House voted yesterday to bar U.S. assistance in Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war on Yemen.
In a small, but meaningful, step, the Senate has rebuked the Administration’s policies toward the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Tip O’Neill was famous for once having advised his fellow Democrats that “all politics is local.” That’s not true anymore, and that’s unfortunate.
American involvement in the genocidal Saudi war on Yemen is getting more complicated. This is a bad idea.
Through our so-called allies in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the United States is helping to destroy Yemen. It’s time for our support for that war to come to an end.
Senate Democrats appear to be recognizing that there’s basically nothing they can do to stop the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
Echoing the Obama Administration, the Trump Administration is arguing that it did not need Congressional authorization to attack Syria earlier this year.
Without Congressional authorization, any attack on Syria would be illegal, but don’t expect Congress to do anything about it.
Yet more troubling news about the proposed citizenship question on the 2020 Census.
Continuing a long-standard tradition, the Trump Administration claims it doesn’t need to get legal authorization to keep American troops in Syria.
With the Administration set to commit the United States to a forever war in Syria, it’s time for Congress to act.
Nearly 200 Members of Congress and the Senate have filed suit against President Trump alleging that he is violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.
Yesterday, the British Parliament debated the expansion of that nation’s military strikes against ISIS. For more than a year, our cowardly Congress has failed to even hold one debate or vote on America’s role in that conflict.
He definitely wouldn’t appreciate it, but in some sense you can thank Robert Bork for the Supreme Court’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Explaining my ambivalence around the latest escalation in our intervention.
President Obama will ask Congress to authorize a war he started six months ago.
Has the legislative branch abdicated its responsibility in US foreign policy?
The House of Representatives has filed its lawsuit against the President. As expected, it doesn’t amount to much.
A critic of the imperial presidency becomes an imperial president.
As things stand right now, there is no legitimate legal authorization for the President’s war against ISIS, and that’s largely because Congress has failed to act.
The Administration’s policy in the President’s war against ISIS has no coherent plan, and that virtually guarantees escalation.
The war against ISIS continues to silently escalate, with little input from the people’s representatives in Congress.
The Obama Administration’s legal justification for war against ISIS is laughably flimsy.
Congress seems ready to avoid having to vote on expanded attacks against the Islamic State
As talk begins of expanding the war against ISIS into Syria, it is becoming long past time for Congress to exercise its Constitutional function.
Your tax dollars, not at work.
John Boehner’s latest political move is designed mostly to appease the GOP base, but it’s likely a non-starter from a legal point of view.
A clash over Separation Of Power and the Imperial Presidency, coming soon to a Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.
If President Obama does decide to use military force in Iraq, he should be required to seek Congressional approval beforehand.
John Boehner explains quite succinctly why nothing big is getting done in Congress.
A proposed Syria authorization being considered in the Senate places several limits on Presidential authority to act, but it’s unclear if those limits can actually work.
Will Congress now take some responsibilty?