Nachrichtenagentur Radio Utopie
Nachrichten direkt von der Quelle. Im Kontext sehen. News Agency of Radio Utopie. News directly from the source. There is context in life. Deutsch, English. 24 h. – Democracy First!
The Senate passed a resolution on Thursday reaffirming its support for a peaceful transition of power, one day after President Trump refused to commit to such a transition next year if he loses in the November election.
The resolution, offered by Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), passed by unanimous consent, meaning no senator objected to it.
The new resolution is almost identical to one the U.S. circulated in June, signaling the Trump administration is unwilling to make changes suggested by allies and opponents on the Security Council.
U.S. Ambassador Kelly Craft acknowledged Tuesday that Russia and China are likely to veto any resolution
President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal two years ago but his administration argues it retains the right to invoke the “snapback” of U.N. sanctions because it is a council member. Others disagree.
Hook did not give a reason for leaving, although he has young children and was frequently away from home on travel. He had just returned to the U.S. from an extended trip to the Middle East and Europe during which he tried to drum up support for the Iran arms embargo extension.
according to dips
But that won’t stop the initiatives, a Palestinian official says.
“The current plan is to keep appealing to UN institutions in order to be recognized, even if the proposals are vetoed over and over. Many countries support this move, so the leadership supports it as well.”
He adds: “There are already 12 or 13 European states that are willing to recognize a Palestinian state under occupation in the event of an Israeli annexation, and that’s the price Israel will have to pay.”
Danon appealed to his Russian counterpart Vitaly Churkin, and the matter went up to the Netanyahu-Putin level. The Russians did not agree to veto Resolution 2334 condemning settlements, but they were opposed to the second one, and generally did not approve of the Obama administration making these last-minute moves right before Trump took office.
The Israeli source posited that the Obama administration did not want to be seen as less pro-Israel than Russia, so they backed down from the second initiative.
In late 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin prevented former US President Barack Obama’s attempt to pass a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution demanding Israel relinquish the West Bank territories captured in the 1967 Six-Day War and accept a two-state resolution based on 1948 borders, freshly declassified documents appear to show.
The new resolution was proposed Tuesday during a teleconference held behind closed doors and organized by Estonia, which holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council. The resolution was submitted in the afternoon.
One of the diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said China declared in the meeting that it backed swift action in the council.
Washington’s reversal came a day after it agreed to the text, negotiators said under cover of anonymity.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced Wednesday that the chamber will hold a veto override vote at 1:30 p.m. It’s expected to fall short of the two-thirds support needed, effectively ending the attempt to nix Trump’s veto.
In a largely party-line 227-186 vote, the House approved the resolution that would direct the president to “terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against” Iran unless Congress specifically authorizes it. Six Republicans voted for the measure.
The Senate passed the resolution in a 55-45 vote last month, with eight Republicans siding with Democrats to support it. Neither chamber of Congress is expected to have the votes to override Trump’s likely veto.
European Union foreign ministers agreed to revive a naval mission in the Mediterranean Sea to enforce the internationally backed arms embargo on Libya, a move likely to encounter stiff challenges given the recent arms buildup by regional powers in the North African country.
„The nation should not be at war without a vote of Congress,“ said Sen. Tim Kaine, the measure’s lead sponsor.
The vote was 55-45. Eight Republicans voted in favor of it: Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Todd Young of Indiana, Mike Lee of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Jerry Moran of Kansas.
The U.S. Senate are expected to hold a final vote on Thursday, Feb. 13, 2020 on a War Powers resolution that is aimed at restricting President Donald Trump’s authority to launch military operations against Iran.
The resolution underscores that Congress has the sole power to declare war, as laid out in the Constitution. The resolution also requires that any hostilities with Iran must be explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force. It does not prevent the U.S. from defending itself from an imminent attack.
The U.S. Senate has begun debating a war powers resolution, which was introduced by Senator Tim Kaine.
On Wednesday, Kaine spoke on the Senate floor, urging other members of the congressional chamber to pass the resolution to „prevent further escalation of hostilities with Iran without congressional authorization.“
The UK-backed resolution, calling for a ceasefire without preconditions and an immediate end to the supply of arms to both sides, was passed by 14 votes to zero, with one abstention from Russia.
It was seen as a test of the UN’s waning authority after its secretary general, António Guterres, described offensives by both sides in the war as a scandal.
The U.S. Senate advanced legislation on Wednesday intended to limit President Donald Trump’s ability to wage war against Iran, paving the way for a final vote as eight Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the war powers resolution.
Palestinian-backed plans for a UN security council vote on Tuesday designed to show international opposition to Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan are expected to be shelved after the US and the UK raised separate objections to the draft text.
In what was being seen as a key test of the diplomatic support for Trump’s “ultimate deal”, Tunisia, with Arab League and Palestinian support, …
(07.02.2020)
Two of those diplomats said they understood Tunisia’s newly elected President Kais Saied had fired Baati—who has served for only five months—following complaints from the United States.
The draft resolution demands that any two-state solution forces Israel to return to its pre-1967 war lines.
„One important thing to highlight: The Trump administration was briefing the Republican conference today, and several people told me that the administration made it clear that if Senator Sanders’s and my amendment passed, then it would have prevented the Suleimani strike. Well, Senator Sanders’s and my amendment had passed two months ago and was part of the national defense authorization, until it was stripped. And the lesson is that we should have fought harder to make sure it wasn’t stripped. It would have literally prevented this entire crisis.“
On January 9, 2020, the House passed their war powers resolution and this week it is the Senate’s turn. The vote will happen soon. Contact your Senators now and tell them to vote for Sen. Kaine’s war powers resolution! Ensure that trump can not take any further military actions against Iran without congressional approval.
Fill out the form below to send an email to your senators — overseas supporters can scroll down to sign the petition below.
No matter who is president, Congress needs to re-establish its role in the use of force.
“President Trump abused his authority as commander-in-chief and chief diplomat to benefit himself,” Schiff said. “And he betrayed the interests of the American people when he did so.“
Exhibit A in their recounting was a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, ….
(17.01.2019)
Kudos to Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Todd C. Young (R-Ind.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) for their integrity in standing up for the resolution put forward by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) that joins the House to remind the administration that the Constitution gave Congress the right to declare war.
James Madison, the principal drafter of the Constitution, wrote that the history of mankind showed that the executive branch is “most interested in war, & most prone to it.”
For this reason, he noted that the Constitution, “with studied care, vested the question of war” in the legislature. Once initiated, the power to carry out military action does flow to the president as commander in chief. And the president always has the power to defend the nation from imminent attack. But even when the president acts unilaterally in response to an attack, that action must be brief and limited to addressing a specific threat. Any action beyond that scope requires an authorization by Congress.
FBI officials had been expected to brief a group of House lawmakers on counterintelligence issues related to Iran on Wednesday in a separate closed-door session but those plans also changed at the last moment, according to two sources familiar with the planning. The reason for the cancellation remains unclear but the briefing was added to the calendar late last week, one of the sources said.
– The Trump administration has canceled three classified briefings scheduled for lawmakers on the situation with Iran
– The move comes amid questions about the president’s justification for killing Iranian General Qassem Soleimani
– The last round of administration briefings ended with lawmakers furious over a lack of candor by Trump administration officials
– Additionally, Senate Democrats said they have enough support to pass a war powers resolution to limit Trump’s ability to use a military response to Iran
Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) are calling on their Senate colleagues to support a proposed resolution aimed at reining in President Trump’s war powers against Iran.
(1) Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution.
(2) Congress has not yet declared war upon, nor enacted a specific statutory authorization for use of military force against, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107–243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) do not serve as a specific statutory authorization for war against Iran, and neither authorize any such action.
Kaine filed a draft of his resolution the day after the Iranian commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, was killed in a U.S. drone strike, and he has been working with Republicans to amend the measure so they would support it. As a result, the updated, bipartisan version removes all references to Trump and his administration’s statements and policies regarding Iran.
The resolution, which would give Mr. Trump a 30-day deadline to come to Congress for authorization for military action in Iran, would still need to be passed by the House. And it would be unlikely to overcome a veto from the president.
Mr. Kaine introduced the measure, which invokes the War Powers Act of 1973, as a privileged joint resolution, which allows him to force a vote on the measure and win over the support of a simple majority of senators.
Senate Democrats hoping to rein in President Trump’s ability to wage war against Iran secured majority support Tuesday for Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-Va.) war powers resolution, but the timing of the measure is now in flux.
In a procedural snafu, Democrats won’t be able to force a vote on the measure until Tuesday at the earliest — the same day the Senate is expected to start Trump’s impeachment trial.
Lee said that the language of the resolution is unobjectionable, saying it simply states that „additional hostilities against Iran need to be authorized by Congress.“ He added, „That is a perfectly unremarkable statement. […] The fact that this would be objectionable to anyone in either political party is really saying something.“ That’s particularly true after Kaine agreed to amendments from Republicans to make the resolution applicable to any president, and to ensure that it wouldn’t force a withdrawal of troops in areas where proxy forces of Iran are present.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) is circulating a bipartisan resolution that would direct Trump to remove U.S. forces from any hostilities against Iran within 30 days of its enactment.
ADVERTISEMENT
GOP Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and Rand Paul (Ky.) have already voiced their support for the measure, and Kaine says about eight more Republicans, including Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Todd Young (Ind.) and Mitt Romney (Utah), are reviewing it.
@GOP @SenateGOP @SenateDems @DNC #TrumpsWar
“It should be voted on when everybody’s in the chamber,” he said, noting Tuesday’s presidential debate. “A, I want to pass it. But B, it is the kind of a vote that should not happen with people absent.”
Story Continued Below
Tuesday’s debate will include Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).
Lawmakers looking to limit Trump’s ability to take military action against Iran face a tight time frame with little room for error after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced she will send the articles of impeachment to the Senate this week. Once the trial begins, all legislation is expected to be delayed for weeks.
But a resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) can come to the Senate floor as soon as Tuesday morning, and he has been trying to win over the four GOP votes needed, in addition to every Democratic senator, to get to 51 votes.
(1) Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution.
(2) Congress has not yet declared war upon, nor enacted a specific statutory authorization for use of military force against, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107–243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) do not serve as a specific statutory authorization for war against Iran, and neither authorize any such action.
(…)
SEC. 2. Removal of United States Forces from Hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
(a) Removal of forces.—Pursuant to section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a), and in accordance with the provisions of section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, by not later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force.
He got a major break Wednesday when Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and Rand Paul (Ky.) told reporters they’d back his effort. Since then, Kaine said, he has spoken with eight or nine more senators from the 53-member GOP caucus, with more meetings planned.
He needs 51 votes for the resolution to pass. A vote could come as soon as Tuesday. Kaine said he has agreed to remove references to President Trump from the resolution — it would, of course, apply to all presidents — and to make other technical changes.
Senate Democrats are debating among themselves whether to take up a concurrent resolution passed by the House on Thursday limiting Trump’s war powers, or to stick with a proposal sponsored by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
The Democratic-controlled House passed the measure on Thursday by a vote of 224-194 with just three Republicans voting in support. Eight Democrats opposed the measure.
The nonbinding war powers resolution was approved in a mostly party-line vote of 224-194. Only three Republicans and one independent joined Democrats to pass the measure. Eight Democrats opposed it.
The Senate could consider a similar measure — but one that has the force of law — as early as next week, but it is unclear if it has enough votes to clear the chamber.
Washington — The House is set to vote Thursday afternoon on a resolution limiting President Trump’s ability to engage in hostilities against Iran under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, as Democrats attempt to reassert Congress‘ constitutional authority to declare war amid a tense standoff with the Islamic Republic.
GOP Senator Mike Lee expresses his displeasure with the briefing about the Iran missile attack, calling it the „worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate.“ Nicolle Wallace, responding to his comments, calls the moment a „huge deal,“ as „Republicans in the Senate are. by and large, zombies, walking along as Donald Trump obliterates things like truth, the rule of law, and respect for our institutions.“
Trump faces an effort on Capitol Hill to limit his ability to strike out at Iran. We discuss with our panel.
With the expected House vote Thursday to limit President Trump’s military actions against Iran, Congress takes its latest stab at reaffirming its constitutional authority to declare war, part of a long-standing power struggle between the executive and legislative branches that has only grown murkier as the nature of global conflicts has changed.
Senators on Wednesday introduced a resolution stressing that neither the 2001 nor 2002 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) covers a potential war with Iran.
The resolution, spearheaded by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), comes after days of escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran in the wake of a U.S. airstrike that killed Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s top military general.
„This week, the House will introduce and vote on a War Powers Resolution to limit the President’s military actions regarding Iran. This resolution is similar to the resolution introduced by Senator Tim Kaine in the Senate. It reasserts Congress’s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken, the Administration’s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days.
The House Resolution will be led by Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin. Congresswoman Slotkin is a former CIA and Department of Defense analyst specializing in Shia militias. She served multiple tours in the region under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.“
Germany is moving some of its military personnel from Iraq to neighbouring countries over security concerns, the government told lawmakers, days after the killing of a top Iranian military commander in a US drone strike.
About 30 of the 120 German soldiers in Iraq who mainly train Iraqi security forces will be redeployed to Jordan and Kuwait, the government told parliament in a letter on Monday.
Our own sources in Baghdad confirmed that the letter was genuine and that they too had seen it.
One source said their understanding of the US position was that a partial withdrawal or repositioning of some troops to Kuwait was taking place.
Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA) joins Hallie Jackson to discuss an upcoming war powers resolution in the House to prevent President Trump from escalating the conflict with Iran. Khanna describes any further action by the President that is not sanctioned by Congress as a „potentially impeachable offense.“
“If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday afternoon when asked about the vote by Iraq’s parliament to end U.S. troop presence in the country.
Senate Democrats are mobilizing behind a resolution that would force Trump to withdraw American troops from hostilities against Iran unless Congress declares war or passes a resolution authorizing military force.
A statement on Sunday from Operation Inherent Resolve said the US-led coalition was “fully committed” to protecting its bases in the light of “repeated rocket attacks” from pro-Iranian militias over the past two months.
“This has limited our capacity to conduct training with partners and to support their operations against Daesh [Isis], and we have therefore paused these activities, subject to continuous review,” the coalition said.
In an extraordinary session, the lawmakers voted with majority in favor of passing a law requiring the government to cancel the request for assistance from the international coalition to fight Islamic State (IS) group due to the end of military operations and war in Iraq.
Parliamentary resolutions are nonbinding to the government, but Abdul-Mahdi had earlier urged parliament to take urgent measures and end the presence of foreign troops as soon as possible.
Kaine and other Democrats have long pushed to allow the previous AUMFs to expire and require presidents to get new authorizations from Congress for new and ongoing conflicts. His resolution states that neither of these previous authorizations allows for war with Iran. “[The previous resolutions] do not serve as a specific statutory authorization for war against Iran, and neither authorize any such action,” the resolution states.
In his last report, published in early October, Othman accused the United States and Britain of withholding information regarding Hammarskjold’s death.
Pyongyang has promised to deliver a “Christmas gift” if there is no progress on easing up on sanctions. But any movement on that front seems nearly impossible at this stage considering talks with Washington have stalled and the North Korean regime is once again insulting Trump regularly. As tensions with North Korea increase, and especially if there is a test around the holidays, it would mark a huge blow to one of President Donald Trump’s major foreign policy initiatives. And it would happen right as he gears up for the presidential campaign.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed on Friday a resolution opposing Israeli annexation of the West Bank. This is the first time such a resolution has passed in U.S. Congress, and while it is not legally binding, it displays growing opposition among the Democratic Party to the policies of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition.
The request was made after the resolution was adopted after 91 UN member states voted in favour, nine rejected and 65 abstained.
On 15 November 2018, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution asking Israel to stop exploiting the natural resources in the Palestinian territories, including the occupied East Jerusalem and Syrian Golan Heights.
2. Considers that, by providing substantive support to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in the implementation of its mandate, the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat continues to make a constructive and positive contribution to raising international awareness of the question of Palestine and of the urgency of a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine in all its aspects on the basis of international law and United Nations resolutions and the efforts being exerted in this regard and to generating international support for the rights of the Palestinian people;
States led by Germany change their voting pattern in favor of Israel, opposing Division of Palestinian Rights, although motion still passes by wide margin
Both chambers of the Argentine parliament on Wednesday passed resolutions to condemn the coup d’etat against Bolivia’s President Evo Morales.
The language in Gabbard’s bill would make it tough for any member of Congress to argue against it.
It also urged EU Member States to halt exports to Egypt “of arms, surveillance technology and other security equipment that can facilitate attacks on human rights defenders and civil society activists,” and for “the EU to implement in full its export controls vis-à-vis Egypt with regard to goods that could be used for repression, torture or capital punishment.”
The resolution — which was sponsored by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and the panel’s top Republican, Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas) — „opposes the decision to end certain United States efforts to prevent Turkish military operations against Syrian Kurdish forces in Northeast Syria.“
Diplomats say this led the US, which currently has no troops there, to propose that maximum number for the mission be reduced from 15,000 to 9,000.
The US mission to the UN would not confirm that number after the council voted 15-0 to extend the peacekeeping role, with no reduction to the maximum.
Following a vote by the Democratic House to table an effort by Rep. Al Green (D-TX) to approve articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, the president gloatingly told reporters “that’s the end of it,” and mocked the resolution as a “ridiculous project.”
Still, more than a dozen of those who sided with Green Wednesday had not endorsed that effort yet formally, including Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee; Eliot Engel (N.Y.), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee; and Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), who chairs a key subcommittee on immigration.
Here is the full list of the 94 Democrats who voted in support of Green’s impeachment effort:
Rep. Al Green was able to force the vote under House rules — the first that Congress has taken related to impeachment since Democrats took control of the chamber this year — in what amounted to the most direct challenge yet to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s handling of impeachment.
(17.07.2019)
Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, read the following on the House floor Tuesday night.
Madam speaker, pursuant to clause 2-a-1 of rule 9, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House, the form of the resolution is as follows. Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States of high misdemeanor, resolved that Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is unfit to be president, unfit to represent the American values of decency and morality, respectability and civility, honesty and propriety, reputability and integrity.
They are now the top, most… ….visible members of the House Democrats, who are now wedded to this bitterness and hate. The Republican vote was 187-4. Wow! Also, this was the first time since 1984 that the Speaker of the House was ruled Out of Order and broke the Rules of the House. Quite a day!
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) took to Twitter to note Pelosi would not be able to speak on the floor for the remainder of the day after failing to comply with House rules.
“BREAKING NEWS —> Speaker Pelosi just broke the rules of the House, and is no longer permitted to speak on the floor of the House for the rest of the day,” he tweeted.
But McCarthy’s tweet ultimately proved to be premature.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) requested Pelosi’s speaking privileges be restored immediately after the vote to strike her comments from the record failed on the floor.
Democratic Congressman Emanuel Cleaver abandons the chair while presiding in the House of Representatives over dysfunction among Democrats and Republicans.
“We don’t ever, ever, want to pass up an opportunity, it seems, to escalate. And that’s what this is,” he added, referring to Republicans‘ motion to strike Pelosi’s remarks. “I dare anybody to look at any of the footage and see if there was any unfairness, but unfairness is not enough because we want to just fight.”
Cleaver’s decision to abandon the chair appeared unprecedented, at least in recent history.
B0mbshell! Chaos in The House as Vote To Strike Pelosi’s Trump Remarks From The Record Fails
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s remarks on in the House Chambers draw a response from Rep. Doug Collins.
“We’ve seen the far left throw accusations of racism at everyone, anyone who disagrees with them on anything, including the Speaker of the House,” he noted, referring to the claim by Ocasio-Cortez last week that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had singled out minority women lawmakers for criticism.
“From the president, to the Speaker, to freshmen members of the House, all of us have the responsibility to elevate the public discourse,” he said, addressing his comments to Trump as well as members of Congress.
Asked if he would consider it a racist attack if someone told his wife Elaine Chao — who is the US Secretary of Transportation and an immigrant and naturalized US citizen — to go back to her own country, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sidestepped the question and talked about his support for legal immigration.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) speaks after a series of attacks by President Trump against several Democratic congresswomen. #CNN #News
The measure, the first House rebuke of a president in more than 100 years, passed nearly along party lines, 240 to 187, after one of the most polarizing exchanges on the floor in recent times. Only four Republicans and the House’s lone independent, Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, voted with all Democrats to condemn the president.
(Livestream)
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other GOP leaders responded to clash between Trump and Democrats‘ ‚the Squad.‘
GOP minority leader Kevin McCarthy of California told reporters he doesn’t consider Trump’s comments racist and slammed Democrats for planning to bring a resolution to the floor later Tuesday condemning the president’s remarks.
“Let’s not be false about what is happening here today,” McCarthy said. “This is all about politics and beliefs of ideologies.
The measure is a chance for Democrats to go on offense, and put Republicans on the record either rejecting or endorsing what the president said.
While some Democrats are pressing for a stronger resolution of censure, House leaders have opted instead for a narrower measure based on Mr. Trump’s latest remarks, in an effort to generate a unanimous vote in their party.
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) believes that immigrants and their descendants have made America stronger, and that those who take the oath of citizenship are every bit as American as those whose families have lived in the United States for many generations;
(2) is committed to keeping America open to those lawfully seeking refuge and asylum from violence and oppression, and those who are willing to work hard to live the American Dream, no matter their race, ethnicity, faith, or country of origin; and
(3) strongly condemns President Donald Trump’s racist comments that have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color by saying that our fellow Americans who are immigrants, and those who may look to the President like immigrants, should ‘‘go back’’ to other countries, by referring to immigrants and asylum seekers as ‘‘invaders,’’ and by saying that Members of Congress who are immigrants (or those of our colleagues who are wrongly assumed to be immigrants) do not belong in Congress or in the United States of America.
The House on Tuesday will vote on a disapproval resolution condemning President Donald Trump’s ‚racist comments‘ in which he said that a group of freshmen congresswomen of color should „go back“ where „they came“ from.
The resolution twice refers to ‚racist comments‘ from Trump but it does not call the president a racist.
The draft resolution was approved with 28 votes in favor, 14 against and five abstentions, and was presented by Venezuela and Palestine on behalf of the Movement of Non-aligned Countries (NAM), except Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, and Peru, during the OHCHR’s 41st session.
Among the senators who signed the resolution are two presidential contenders, Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The resolution was crafted by Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and signed by Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein of California, Tammy Duckworth, from Illinois, and Dick Durbin, also from Illinois.
“Unilateral annexation of portions of the West Bank would jeopardize prospects for a two-state solution, harm Israel’s relationship with its Arab neighbors, threaten Israel’s Jewish and democratic identity, and undermine Israel’s security,“ the resolution states.
The bill, SJ Res 7, was a straightforward bill under the War Powers Act of 1973. The bill noted that Congress never authorized the US war in Yemen, and demanded an end to it. The US Constitution grants sole power to declare wars to the Congress, and by extension the power to order an end to illegal wars.
Das droht einen sehr gefährlichen Präzedenzfall zu schaffen, denn nach Jahrzehnten, in denen Präsidenten unilaterale Kriegsbefugnisse beanspruchten, war der Jemen die erste wirkliche Herausforderung im Rahmen des War Powers Act, die an Dynamik gewann. Dass sie mit einem leichten Veto und wenig Kontroversen ausgelöscht wurde, trägt nur dazu bei, dass der Präsident zumindest de facto einseitige kriegerische Befugnisse hat, und die Kontrolle des Kongresses nur auf dem Papier existiert.
The resolution declared Nazis are bad, Martin Luther King Jr. was good, and — the real heart of the matter — rejected “the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance, especially in the context of support for the United States-Israel alliance.”
It was a very Democratic-party solution. Adding to the comedy, 23 House Republicans voted no on the resolution,
Russia plans to submit to the UN Security Council (UNSC) its own draft resolution on resolving the Venezuelan crisis in response to US-proposed draft that envisages new elections. Copies of both documents were obtained by TASS.
The U.S. is seeking support for a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Venezuela’s government for blocking humanitarian aid from entering the country and calling on President Nicolas Maduro to hold new elections.
(25.1.2019) Only 16 out of the 34 countries that are members of the OAS supported the U.S.-sponsored statement. Pompeo gave an interventionist speech alleging that „the time of debate is done,“ and called „illegitimate“ the presidency of democratically and constitutionally elected President Nicolas Maduro.
In the meeting, „the scene was that of Secretary of State (U.S.), Mike Pompeo, at the head of all alongside the Secretary-General, Luis Almagro, dictating practically the policies that the rest of the allied governments were dedicated to repeating,“ said teleSUR correspondent in Washington, Alina Duarte.
(24.1.2019) SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you very much. The United States is a friend of Venezuela and of the Venezuelan people. We have watched Venezuelans suffer for far too long. We know what they know, that the tyranny of the now defunct Maduro regime has far too long – for far too long choked the country and its citizens.
Yesterday, in solidarity with the Venezuelan people, and out of respect for Venezuelan democracy, the United States proudly recognized National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the interim president of Venezuela. You’ve seen the statements from President Trump and from myself.
Many other countries, including a number of OAS states, have also recognized the interim president. We thank them for their support.
It’s now time for the OAS as an institution as a whole to do the same. All OAS member states must align themselves with democracy and respect for the rule of law. All member states who have committed to uphold the Inter-American Democratic Charter must now recognize the interim president.
And there is only one possible name for this one. It has to be the Parliament of Pygmies, presided over as it is by the pygmy-in-chief, Speaker John Bercow, who, early in his period of office, was denounced by one infuriated Minister as a ‘sanctimonious, stupid dwarf’.
Ordinarily all this would be no more than matter for wry amusement. But the times are anything but ordinary. So strange are they, in fact, that the pygmies think they are giants and ape the gestures of the parliamentary greats of the past.
Commons Speaker John Bercow secretly met Tory rebel Dominic Grieve just hours before throwing out centuries of tradition to allow the MP to scupper Theresa May’s Brexit plans.
The pair spoke in Mr Bercow’s grace-and-favour Commons apartment the day before the Speaker tore up the rule book to allow the former Attorney General to table an amendment to wrest control of Brexit from the Prime Minister, The Mail on Sunday can reveal
SPEAKER John Bercow hurled insults at aides and binned their advice when they tried to warn against anti-Brexit bias, it was claimed yesterday.
He allegedly bawled them down and declared: “I’m not interested in what a gaggle of clerks has to say.”
The astonishing clash came two hours before he ripped up the Commons rule book to allow rebel MPs the chance to frustrate Britain’s exit from the EU.
But if you think the only thing that matters is that a majority voted to leave the EU in the referendum, then you are likely to think Mr Bercow is a dishonest and biased scoundrel who has broken the rules in his determination to stop Brexit.
It is possible to take a different view of the Speaker’s behaviour. For a start it is entirely consistent with the way that he has done the job over the past 10 years – when a majority of MPs have repeatedly chosen to keep him in the chair.
Those 308 MPs were not voting to take back control of Brexit from the government, but from the 17.4million people who voted to leave the EU. They are not ‘rebels’ but the cross-party political wing of the Remain-backing UK establishment, determined to thwart the democratic vote for Brexit at all costs.
Far from defending democracy, Bercow was acting as the agent of this elitist ‘coup’.
The controversy sparked a near riot in Parliament as Brexiteers shouted their fury at the Speaker.
Amid scenes of chaos on the Commons floor, one livid Cabinet minister confronted Mr Bercow just before PMQs to accuse him of being “totally out of order”.
The Sun can reveal that seething Chief Whip Julian Smith – one of Mrs May’s closest lieutenants – accused Mr Bercow of “throwing centuries of precedence in the bin to thwart the referendum result”.
Prisons Minister Rory Stewart has been a doughty defender of Theresa May’s deal in the past weeks.
The ruling by Mr Bercow, whose relationship with the government has been rancorous for years and has deteriorated over recent months, began a procedural row lasting more than an hour in the Commons as Conservative MPs accused him of “sophistry” and bias, Labour MPs applauded him and the Speaker refused to deny that he had overruled…
Whatever shape Brexit takes, the effects of this unilateral change to parliamentary rules will be felt for a long time
Then there’s the matter of how the Commons works in the future, long after Bercow has gone. Does this mean that another Speaker can change procedure as he pleases, even against the advice of his own clerks? How can the Commons prevent this leading to the next referee being so obviously lacking in neutrality that their authority is even less than Bercow’s?
Given the propensity of thought-to-be-lost Morecambe and Wise episodes to turn up decades later in west African cinema store cupboards, we must advise the parliamentary archivists immediately to incinerate all recorded footage of the House of Commons between 12.41 and 13.53 on the afternoon of Wednesday 9 January 2019, and promptly blast the ashes deep into outer space.
Actually, perhaps that’s too risky.
It is true to say that you cannot really make an argument that Bercow’s action is supported by precedent or the rules of the House. What matters is if they are supported by the one rule of British politics that does matter: do you have a majority in the House of Commons? If you have a majority in the House of Commons, it doesn’t matter if you are found to have misled MPs, provided that majority is willing to sustain you in office. It doesn’t matter if you are upending centuries of precedent, because the only precedent that matters in our constitution is that Parliament can do whatever it wants.
(today)
Furious Brexiteers raise questions about the Remain-supporting Speaker in angry parliamentary exchanges.
Raising a point of order after PMQs, he said: “Mr Speaker, I have not been in this House as long as you but I have been here for 18 years and I have never known any occasion when any Speaker has overruled a motion of the House of Commons. “You have said again and again you’re a servant of this House and we take you at your word, and I have heard you many times on points of order when people have challenged you say ‘I cannot do X or Y because I am bound by a motion of the House’. “You have done that multiple times in my experience, so why are you overruling this today?”
Follow the #Brexit debate here: http://po.st/FKBjwo
I suspect that, one way or another, Mr Bercow’s turbulent tenure in the Commons chair is coming to an end.
Perhaps in months rather than weeks, but not before the big Brexit votes (and it’s not impossible that somewhere along the way, he might have to make this kind of ruling again).
The basic question his would-be successors will have to answer is how much of the Bercow revolution in the way the Commons works should be scrapped – and how much should be retained?
A row has broken out in the House of Commons over #Brexit – follow the latest here: http://po.st/FKBjwo
> MPs have voted by 308 to 297 to force Theresa May to return to the Commons with a Brexit plan in just three days if her current deal is defeated
> Tory MPs accused Commons Speaker John Bercow of not being impartial on Brexit – but he denied the charges.
Now, Congress has the opportunity to make a real difference that will save Yemeni lives. But one of the main legislative solutions it’s considering contains major mistakes that would actually perpetuate Saudi and American fighting and Yemeni suffering, not end them. For that reason, the ACLU urged members of the House of Representatives to vote no on the legislation, commonly referred to as the Yemen resolution.
(31.5.2018) US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has vowed to “unquestionably veto” a UN draft resolution calling for an international mission to protect Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip. There is speculation the resolution, sponsored by Kuwait, could be up for vote Friday.
A special session of the UN Human Rights Council has ended with a resolution by Member States to investigate weeks of violence on the Israeli border with Gaza, which has claimed the lives of more than 100 people in the enclave and left thousands wounded.
“The Security Council must stand behind its resolutions and ensure they have meaning; otherwise, we risk undermining the credibility of the international system,” wrote Bolivia, China, Ivory Coast, Equatorial Guinea, France, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Peru and Sweden in the letter seen by Reuters.
Der UN-Sicherheitsrat schweigt zum Austritt der USA aus dem Iran-Atomabkommen. Das hat gute Gründe. Die haben mit der vierten von 144 Seiten des Resolutionstextes zu tun.
Zwei US-Abgeordnete haben eine Resolution eingereicht, mit der die diplomatischen Bemühungen von US-Präsident Donald Trump um eine Denuklearisierung der koreanischen Halbinsel unterstützt werden sollen.
Der Demokrat Tulsi Gabbard und der Republikaner Ted Yoho legten die Resolution am Freitag vor, dem Tag des innerkoreanischen Spitzentreffens im Waffenstillstandsort Panmunjom.
For the first time since the start of the Korean War, the prospects for peace are gaining serious momentum. We must pursue direct diplomacy in order to remove the threat of nuclear war. Tulsi’s resolution calls on the following steps:
Israel schließt jede Untersuchung der Morde aus