this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
72 points (97.4% liked)

politics

29610 readers
2319 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
72
Hegseth says clock paused on deadline to seek approval for Iran war (www.bbc.com)
submitted 18 hours ago by TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has argued that the clock has paused on a deadline for the Trump administration to seek approval from Congress for the US-Israeli war with Iran. Hegseth was responding to questions from members of the Senate, or upper chamber, on Thursday. Friday is the 60th day since Trump formally notified Congress of the strikes against Iran on 2 March. US law requires a president to "terminate any use of United States Armed Forces" within 60 days of such a notification - unless Congress allows a continuation. A senior administration official said hostilities with Iran had "terminated", emphasising that a ceasefire had been in effect since early April. Despite the ceasefire, the two sides have not yet reached a longer-term deal via talks, though efforts to end the stalemate appear to be underway.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 28 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

bullshit.

CHAPTER 33—WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

50 USC Ch. 33: WAR POWERS RESOLUTION From Title 50—WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

§1544. Congressional action (a) Transmittal of report and referral to Congressional committees; joint request for convening Congress

Each report submitted pursuant to section 1543(a)(1) of this title shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section. (b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543(a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. (c) Concurrent resolution for removal by President of United States Armed Forces

Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

next they are going to claim that "hostilities" only count during the time that munitions are exploding and physically dismembering children in Iranian schools.

edit: formatting

[–] immutable@lemmy.zip 19 points 17 hours ago

By this logic as long as the executive branch filed a new report once a week with a new operation name they could commit US forces to a theater of war indefinitely.

Clearly this is against both the spirit and the letter of the law, but I have no faith that congress will fight to enforce it or if they did that the Supreme Court would do fuck all to stop it.

We find ourselves in “they thought they were free”

And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

[–] newton@feddit.online 13 points 16 hours ago

L•I•E•S

[–] _chris@lemmy.world 11 points 15 hours ago

Man tells lawmakers how he intends to skirt their laws

Lawmakers say “yep sounds good, clearing nothing we can do to stop this”

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

He then spit on a passer-by, grabbed his crotch, and vomited on his shoes. All in a day’s work for Drinky Pete.

[–] deft@lemmy.wtf 2 points 12 hours ago

Soon to be last day of work. I think the walls are closing in on drunko. Trump allegedly was looking to drop him and Patel

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 6 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

One really cool thing to imagine is if they do decide to impeach and remove Trump (they won't, the GOP are worthless assholes to their bonemarrow) then they would also not consider Vance for POTUS because he already went to negotiate in person and came back empty handed.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

It doesn't matter what they might or might not "consider", if they impeach Trump them Vance becomes President, unless they do a twofer and impeach them both.

If they ever have the votes to impeach Trump, they would likely have the votes to impeach both of them. But, they may think it's political suicide to do so, especially since then a (presumably Democratic) House Speaker would become President, and not by being elected, which would trigger all sorts of folks on the ~~Reich~~ Right

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online -5 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Pretty sure that via impeachment process the Speaker of the House chooses the replacement president, but idk for sure because no sitting president has ever actually been removed.

[–] hateisreality@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

Nope... The VP becomes president. The Speaker is next inline, so I am assuming they become VP.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

Nope, that is incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

If a Presidential impeachment succeeds, that person immediately leaves office. The Constitution says that if the President were ever to leave office, the VP takes over. But if there is also no VP, what happens next depends on the Presidential Succession Act:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act

Which says that the Speaker of the House becomes Acting President.

Its still a matter of debate what exactly an "acting President" can do in this context. Does the House Speaker resign from Congress and move into the White House? That is the plainest reading of it all, after all.