Nancy Pelosi: Dear Colleague on Introduction of War Powers Resolution

It would be fair to call Speaker Pelosi’s letter seditious, both technically and symbolically. A bit of an exageration, perhaps, but fair.

The president unquestionably had constitutional authority to kill Soleimani. The Speaker’s intention to constrain that authority is an attempt to subvert the constitutional order.

The Speaker of course has co-equal authority to pursue the intentions her letter describes. Ultimately, however, the only Congressional remedy for limiting the powers of the presidency is impeachment. And good luck trying to make a case for impeachment out of killing a known enemy combatant.

In other words, Pelosi’s claim of “oversight responsibilities” is an egregious overreach. Sedition, in fact.

19 thoughts on “Nancy Pelosi: Dear Colleague on Introduction of War Powers Resolution

  1. Your assessment, as usual is Constitutionally inaccurate. Just because Trump and his GOP enablers allow him to ignore the Constitution regularly, does not indicate sedition oh teh part of the Speaker. She is within her Constitutional duties to take the actions being taken. She even explained it quite clearly.

    Sorry, but just because a member of the opposition party takes appropriate actions against a rogue president does not make it seditious. It is her DUTY.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “Just because Trump and his GOP enablers allow him to ignore the Constitution regularly, does not indicate sedition oh teh part of the Speaker.”

      That wasn’t my argument.

      My argument is that killing Soleimani was consitent with the president’s constitutional authority. Pelosi’s response therefore, by definition, subverts the constitutional order.

      The burden is on you to show that killing Soleimani was unconstitutional in some way. Can you do that?


      1. @Roberts
        Even more than usual your analysis is idiotic. The President has ZERO constitutional authority to attack ANYBODY. The power to declare war is strictly reserved to the Congress. What the President MAY have is legal authority granted from time to time by the Congress. In this case, since Trump is ignoring the requirements of the War Powers Act, the legal authority he is relying on must be the is almost twenty years old – the AUMF passed in the aftermath of 9-11 – and it is long past time for the Congress to reassert ITS Constitutional authority over matters of peace and war. Your calling the Speaker’s letter “seditious” is grotesque stupid. IMHO.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. The assassination was a stretch of AUMF. No Constitutional authority, just a temporary relinquishment of Congressional powers.

        No evidence has been presented that an attack was imminent, or even planned. Secrecy is not the issue. Trump told the world that the Russians were under terrorist threat and even disclosed the Israeli sources.

        What are we, chopped liver?

        And with this regime’s lack of familiarity with the truth and love affair with alternative facts, Americans deserve to know for real if we are in danger.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. RE: “The President has ZERO constitutional authority to attack ANYBODY.”

        Any rational response to such an insane assertion would be a waste of time.


        1. @Roberts

          A “rational response” to the simple fact of the matter is not needed. Just admit how ignorant you were to put things in the Constitution that are not there.

          Throwing bombs at government officials of foreign nations is an act of war. ONLY the Congress has the power to declare war. That is re-affirmed in the War Powers Act and the AUMF and now again by the new resolution reining in King Donald’s war mongering. It may be argued that somehow this stupidity was legal but only by a very broad interpretation of past Congressional actions.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “Just admit how ignorant you were to put things in the Constitution that are not there.”

          I think you should admit that your statement, “The President has ZERO constitutional authority to attack ANYBODY,” is ignorant. The president doesn’t need a declaration of war to order military action, especially when he finds that American lives are at risk.


          1. @Robert

            Yes, the President can take military action on his own under powers granted by Congress – NOT by the Constitution. That was your claim and it is ignorant.

            As far as American lives being at risk justifying this assassination – we can be certain that such a claim is just another bald-faced lie by this lying liar of a President. Soleimani was on a peace mission according to the Iraqi government.

            Liked by 1 person

      4. RE: “No evidence has been presented that an attack was imminent, or even planned.”

        Then you’re not paying attention. American Spectator, for example, notes: “Citing anonymous sources within the Iraqi security service and Shi’ite militia commanders, Reuters reports that, at the time of his death, Soleimani had instructed al-Muhandis ‘and other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran…’ including Katyusha rockets and shoulder-fired missiles capable of bringing down helicopters. Moreover, ‘the U.S. intelligence community had reason to believe that Soleimani was involved in ‘late stage’ planning to strike Americans in multiple countries, including Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon…’

        “In fact, by the time Soleimani was killed, the initial phases of the planned attacks had already taken place. The Soleimani strike followed by days a thirty-plus rocket attack by a Quds Force militia on an Iraqi military base which killed an American civilian contractor and wounded four American servicemen. And, the day before Soleimani’s death, the same Quds Force militia had assaulted the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.”


        1. @Roberts
          The American Spectator? That rag is a treasure trove of alternative facts. Alternative facts are not evidence of anything. Did you learn nothing from all the “evidence” of WMDs in Iraq? This talk of an imminent threat to Americans is the same phony bullshit.

          Instead of coming to Iraq to organize strikes against Americans, Soleimani was very likely on a mission to lower tensions. At least, that is what the government of Iraq is saying . . .

          It is a sad state of affairs for this country when our President is a known liar with zero credibility and we have to turn to the Iraqi premier for the truth.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. Fake news.

          Anonymous sources?

          Nobody believed that stuff before, but now a revelation.

          When a regime has lied and mislead thousands of time for things big and little, who in the hell is going to believe them now.

          Of course that is Trump’s agenda. Make sure his fellow Americans stay confused so they won’t know who or what to believe. He admitted so and bragged about it to Leslie Stahl.

          What a friggin’ phony he is.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. RE: “Fake news.”

            How convenient. You said there was no evidence. Then when shown evidence, you call it fake news.

            Reuters, however, is not the only source for the same or similar information about Soleimani’s activities. Instead of protecting your own opinion, you should do some reading.


  2. How come you never believe media until it suits your beliefs?

    You moan about anonymous sources when quoted by WAPO or NYT, but now it is all “evidence”.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Trump doesn’t have to “believe” intelligence. He just makes it up as it suits him, then tweets that crap to his faithful and, bada bim, bada boom, bada bap, he is basking in MAGA hat wearers’ adulation.

        “Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

        H. Goering

        That playbook is old, older than the quote, but always effective unless there are strong people in government to question and demand answers. It worked well enough for the Bush boys and other neo-con criminals to get us into Iraq. Even major media was afraid of being called unpatriotic. Of course, after 9/11 times were tense and it took special courage to face down the administration.

        Look out for other pretenses to attack Iran. I think they will come. Trump has been taunting the Iranians for a few years now. Nothing like a good war to get folks behind the president.

        Unfortunately, the majority in the Senate are so weak, useless and afraid that they will agree to anything, absolutely anything, to be graced by the regime.

        At least half the House has some integrity and moral fortitude.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. “Nothing like a good war to get folks behind the president.” Yerp!. And Trump even accused Obama of doing exactly what HE is doing theses days. Start a war with I ran to help win an election. If it weren’t so stupid and dangerous, it might be funny.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s