Article from The Hill by Andrew Swick and Amy Schafer.

Last Wednesday the Senate quietly rejected a proposal by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul to rescind the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which would have forced Congress to take a clear stance on the president’s actions overseas.

The Senate’s decision closely follows the announcement of President Trump’s new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, which was notably light on details and lacking in measures of success. By voting “no” on Senator Paul’s amendment, the Senate continues to abdicate their constitutional role in U.S. foreign policy, allowing the president to deploy American forces to places like Afghanistan without accountability.

Rand Paul’s proposal, which lost on a vote of 61 to 36, was carefully designed to force Congress to debate the validity of America’s ongoing involvement in overseas conflicts.

While the legislative action would have repealed the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, the language of the amendment would have also delayed implementation by six months, providing time for Congress to consider and pass new, tailored authorizations as necessary. Instead, the Senate chose to preserve the existing authorizations, which the Cato Institute notes have been used to justify “everything from ‘boots on the ground in the Congo’ to drones over Timbuktu.” Regardless of the utility of any specific military action, the broad language of these authorizations limits Congress’ power to check the president’s use of force.

Read the entire article at The Hill.