Friday, January 10, 2020

Lucas: Pelosi’s War Powers Resolution puts Politics over National Security


Pelosi’s War Powers Resolution Puts Politics Over National Security

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Frank Lucas (OK-03) released the following statement after the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Con.Res. 83- War Powers Resolution by a vote of 224-194. Representative Frank Lucas opposed the resolution.
“There’s no question about it, President Trump was justified in killing Qasem Soleimani – Iran’s most deadly terrorist. For decades, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force has brought bloodshed and terror to the region under the command of Soleimani. Our armed forces and allies are safer thanks to the President’s constitutionally authorized defensive actions.

At a time when Congress should be steadfast and united behind the strength of our national defense, House Democrats are instead more interested in undermining President Trump and playing politics with our national security.

While there will always be differences in policy between the many personalities that serve within the House, it’s apparent the Majority has rushed to push through a resolution that has no binding effect, will not be signed into law, and was drafted to simply highlight the Democrat’s disdain towards the President.”

Background:
On January 2, 2020, the United States military, under the direction of President Donald Trump, took defensive action to protect U.S. personnel by killing Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. In the weeks prior to the strike, Soleimani was responsible for attacks on U.S. military personnel as well as the terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. As Commander in Chief, the President of the United States has the Article II Constitutional authority to use force to protect and defend our nation and our forces.

A concurrent resolution cannot have the force of law because it is not presented to the President and subject to veto, as required by Supreme Court constitutional case law since 1983.

0 comments: