A Republican Lawmaker has introduced a New Bill to Congress, that would Curb Trump’s (R) Executive Powers. Efforts in Congress to Curb Trump’s Executive and Military Powers have gained Momentum, after His Administration led a Surprise Military Raid to Seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. This Operation, conducted without Advance Consultation with Congressional Leaders, has spurred Bipartisan Concerns over Unchecked Presidential Authority, particularly regarding Foreign Entanglements and the use of Military Force.
On Tuesday, Rep. Mike D. Rogers (R-AL, 3rd District) introduced H.R. 6971, a Bill “To require congressional approval of major Executive Orders and major rules, and for other purposes.” His Legislation is currently under Consideration byFour House Committees, and Marks a Renewed Congressional Push to Reclaim Authority over Expansive Executive Actions, especially in Light of Recent U.S. Military Interventions Abroad.
These Developments signal Rare Republican Dissent in an otherwise Largely Supportive GOP, Raising Crucial Questions about the Balance-of-Power between the Executive and Legislative Branches in American Government. The Legislative Proposals could Significantly Affect how Future Military Actions and Major Executive Decisions are Authorized. Rogers’s Bill aims to Mandate that Significant Executive Orders and Rules from the Ppresident require Direct Congressional Approval before taking Effect.
In Parallel, the Senate Advanced a Bipartisan War Powers Resolution to Limit Trump‘s Ability to Order further Military Action against Venezuela. The Vote Passed 52-47, with All Democrats and Five Republicans: Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Todd Young of Indiana, and Josh Hawley of Missouri, Supporting the Measure. The Resolution would Require the President to seek Explicit Congressional Authorization before Deploying U.S. Military Forces In or Against Venezuela.
It follows Trump’s Military Seizure of Venezuela’s Leader in a Covert Operation. The Administration stated its Intention to “Run” Venezuela and Control its Oil Resources, sparking Debate over Congressional Oversight and Transparency. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the Power to Declare War and Authorize Sustained Military Operations (Article I, Section 8). This means any Long-Term or Large-Scale Military Engagement Typically requires Congressional Approval.
However, the President, as Commander-in-Chief (Article II), can Initiate Limited Military Actions or Emergency Deployments without Prior Consent. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 further Restricts this Authority: the President must Notify Congress within 48 hours of Deploying Forces and Cannot continue Hostilities beyond 60 Days, without Congressional Authorization.
This Framework aims to Balance Swift Executive Action in Crises with Legislative Oversight. Executive Orders are Unilateral Directives Issued by the President to Manage Federal Operations. They do Not require Congressional Approval, but they must be Grounded in either Constitutional Authority or Statutory Powers Granted by Congress. Importantly, Executive Orders Cannot Override Existing Laws.
The Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) Clarified this Limit, Ruling that a President Cannot Seize Private Property without Legislative Backing. If an Executive Order Conflicts with Federal Law, Congress can Pass Legislation to Nullify it, and Courts can Strike it Ddown.
Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), Sponsor of the Senate Resolution, said on the Senate Floor: “After the administration’s actions over the weekend, which resulted in several injuries to US service members … Congress needs to tell the American public where it stands.” Senator Hawley said: “If the president should determine, ‘You know what? I need to put troops on the ground of Venezuela.’ I think that would require Congress to weigh in.”
Senator Paul, long a critic of unauthorized military action, said: “The question is about who has the power to take the country to war? The reason you argue on principle against even things that appear to be good … isn’t even always for the current president, it’s for the next president.”
Trump said on Truth Social: “This Vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief.” He called the War Powers Resolution “Unconstitutional” and said the GOP Senators who Voted with Democrats “should never be elected to office again.”
House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA, 4th District) said: “President Trump is a strong president who takes decisive action, and that sends an important message to other dangerous people, terrorists and tyrants around the world. I think that’s an important role for America to play.” Any such Measure would Require Trump’s Signature to become Law, a Highly Unlikely Outcome.
Separately, H.R. 6971 begins Committee Review in the House, facing an Uphill Legislative Process. Republican and Democratic Leaders remain Sharply Ddivided on both Presidential Powers and Foreign Policy Direction, and more Votes on War Powers Limitations regarding Potential Actions in: Colombia, Greenland, and other Countries are Anticipated in the coming weeks.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment