Democrat says he'll reintroduce war powers resolutions after report of attack on drug boat survivors

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: ABC News

November 30, 2025, 7:09 PM


Sen. Tim Kaine says he plans to refile his resolution demanding there be no war against Venezuela without congressional approval and expressed confidence it could pass given recent developments in the Trump administration's escalating campaign against the South American country.

"It failed, but that was before all of these assets have amassed around Venezuela, and before President Trump said that the airspace needs to be closed," Kaine said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Kaine also said he plans to reintroduce the war powers resolution that he and Democratic colleague Adam Schiff introduced in October that block the use of U.S. military force in the Caribbean Sea without an Authorization of Military Force by Congress.

"The circumstances have changed in the months since we had that vote. In each of these instances, we were able to get two Republicans to vote together with Democrats," Kaine said. "We think the escalating pace and some of the recent revelations, so, for example, the recent revelation about the 'kill everyone' order apparently dictated by Secretary Hegseth. We do believe that we will get more support for these motions when they are refiled."

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-hell-reintroduce-war-powers-resolutions-after-report/story?id=127984613

[Irish_Dem]

1. Trump doesn't have to answer to congress. He can ignore them.

[thesquanderer]

5. Correct. He has immunity. The only theoretical consequence is impeachment, and this Congress won't impeach.

Even if they midterms go our way and we have more power in that 2nd half of his term, it's virtually inconceivable that 2/3 of that Senate would ever convict. The Supreme Court made him a king.

[Irish_Dem]

7. The US Supreme Court is the legal dept of the Putin/GOP crime syndicate.

[Augiedog]

2. Congress abdicated its responsibility and authority to presidents long ago

Now the beast is collecting its due.

Once upon at time on a planet far far away, in a nation well thought of, presidents were not crazy, malevolent, despotic, pedo’s, stunningly ignorant in all respects, serial liars, belligerently disdainful of the constituency, irrationally boastful, didn’t hire a cadre of lickspittal suck ups who are only qualified to occupy a prison cell, don’t cheat at golf or other recreational activity, and didn’t smell like a Mobil outhouse on an August day in Florida.

That nation usually, until now, elected predictably rational humans who saw themselves as fallible humans. Recognized their potential to be wrong and wanted their nation to do well.

Ahhh, for the good old days of simple burglary and coverup to distract the populace. Or a war manufactured out of lies in south east Asia. Or aluminum tubes being evidence sufficient to invade another nation. Ahhh and hurray for the days of the biggest scandal being whether or not the president is afraid of attack rabbits, and of course a “B” class actors wife running the country while he shuffles along into irrelevancy.

Ya get what ya pay for, and boy are we getting it

[Bluetus]

3. Saw this in spades with Bush and Chaney

But the erosion of this constitutional responsibility may have iits roots earlier in Kosovo and certainly Vietnam.

Congress does not not operate anything like what the founders had hoped for.

[Tetrachloride]

4. Sternly

[reACTIONary]

8. Its not a non binding resolution, its binding if...

.... it also passes the house and is not vetoed. It is basically the best the legislature can do.

Is there something otherwise that can be done?

And welcome to DU!

[John Coktosten]

9. Not true

Respectively, this is a resolution not a bill. A bill could be passed by the house and then theoretically signed by the POTUS (obviously not gonna happen in this case or overridden by both houses at 67%....also not gonna happen).
Timmy has caved on us twice this year alone. He's not doing his job which is fighting for his constituents. He's caving and bowing down like the weak kneed bitch he is. I'm from VA, have voted for Timmy a few times. I've experienced the consequences of his pathetic pearl clutching. There is a ton of stuff he could be doing but isn't. Submitting actual bills, starting investigations, being vocal about his displeasure on various media outlets, maybe doing some actual leading for VA, using his connections, to make things harder for Dump, et al, too many to list. Tim Kaine is a doppelganger for Merrick Garland in terms of his ACTION.

[reACTIONary]

10. Well, the Google tells me "it's complicated"....

A resolution is not always a bill, but they are both types of legislation. The main difference is that bills must be passed by both the House and Senate and signed by the President to become binding law, while the impact of resolutions varies.

Types of resolutions and their effects:

*Simple Resolutions: These affect only the chamber where they are introduced (either the House or Senate). They are used for internal matters, such as setting rules for the chamber or expressing opinions, and do not have the force of law.

*Concurrent Resolutions: These are passed by both the House and Senate but do not require the President's signature, so they also do not have the force of law. They are typically used for matters affecting both chambers, such as setting adjournment dates or expressing the sentiments of both houses.

*Joint Resolutions: These are functionally similar to bills and are considered to have the same effect as laws. They require approval from both houses of Congress and the President's signature to take effect (except for those proposing constitutional amendments).

According to https://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/leg_laws_acts.htm:

There is no real difference between a joint resolution and a bill. The joint resolution is generally used for continuing or emergency appropriations.

I'm pretty sure this isn't a simple resolution, since it isn't an internal matter. Doesn't seem to be a concurrent resolution either, for the same reason. That would leave it to be at least a nascent joint resolution. So if it were taken up by the House, and not vetoed, it would have the force of law.

Apparently, they can be distinguished by the naming convention applied to them. I don't know the name of this resolution, but, as noted, it wouldn't make sense as either a simple or concurrent resolution. Unless it is entirely performative, as you expect.

(By the way, as far as I'm concerned, you don't have to be respective, or respectful either 😊.)

[John Coktosten]

11. It's not that complicated.

A bill would need some kind of rules or regulation being proposed. A resolution is different. A resolution is like "We the US Senate resolve that Whiskey Pete is a poo poo pants".

[reACTIONary]

12. Well, in this case, it IS a joint resolution. I looked it up....

S.J.Res.90 - A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/90

So, it would indeed have the effect of a bill, and it seems that it does indeed propose a regulation: Removal of hostilities.

So I think there is some "there" there.

By the way, Whiskey Pete is a poo poo pants. I'd support that resolution.

On edit: It seems to have already been voted on and lost: Motion to discharge Senate Committee on Foreign Relations rejected by Yea-Nay Vote. 49 - 51.

[John Coktosten]

13. That's not a regulation.

Last edited Tue Dec 2, 2025, 12:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Check out the federal code of regulations (if you're bored).
That's 100% a resolution.

[John Coktosten]

14. Well damn

Had no idea about the vote. Thank you!

[reACTIONary]

15. Now I'm not sure about the vote....

.... I'm now not sure if this vote was from the first time he introduced it and it gets another vote or not. The web portal is a bit confusing and the date of introduction was 10/16.

It received two gop votes, Rand Paul and Murkowski. I guess if it gets introduced again and gets one more it goes to the house. But the parliamentary proceedings are not clear to me.

This link displays the text, not just the title: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/90/text

SEC. 2. Termination of the use of United States forces for hostilities within or against Venezuela.

(a) Termination.—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 terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force.

As a joint resolution, it would have the force of law if passed and signed.

[John Coktosten]

16. Oh nice!

Thank you!