Over the past weeks, several media outlets have described efforts in Congress to restrain the Administration’s unconstitutional war against Iran via War Powers Resolution votes as merely symbolic. Prior to February’s Supreme Court ruling, Congressional resolutions against President Trump’s IEEPA tariffs received similar descriptions. I heard similar phrasing from colleagues and something about it didn’t sit right with me. So I decided to write about it.
The reasoning behind painting Congressional votes against executive overreach as toothless symbolism is simple: thanks to a 1983 Supreme Court ruling, Congressional actions like War Powers Resolution votes must be passed as Joint Resolutions, which are subject to a Presidential veto. Congress needs a 2/3rds majority vote in both chambers to overcome a veto, which is politically infeasible.
So, yes, Congressional votes against executive abuse of emergency or war powers are ineffective, but that doesn’t make them symbolic. Symbolism has its uses in politics, but a symbolic action is something like holding a speech at a place or on a day with special meaning or arranging the seating chart at an event. Legislation by its nature is substantive. It’s literally the legislative branch’s job. Deriding substantive actions as theater is ceding to Steve Bannon’s characterization of Congress as the Duma where performative opposition and debate can take place, but all real power lies with the executive.
The current Republican majorities’ inability and unwillingness to stand up for Congress’s Article 1, Section 8 authorities is truly jumping the shark on a long history of Congressional concessions in recent decades. The current Congress can’t stand up for itself over anything from the budget to war powers, national emergencies, or even the statutory names of cabinet-level departments. That’s led the Democratic minority to reaching to shutdowns, a tactic the party has long derided, as a means to a least slow if not stop the White House’s flood the zone strategy of executive actions. The full shutdown last fall and the DHS shutdown this spring did not achieve all of the Democrats’ stated goals. But they weren’t just symbolic. They represented players in an institution taking substantive actions with the means available to them.
Even a more assertive Congress with a Democratic majority in one or both chambers after the midterms will have to contend with a Presidential veto. Those are the rules of the game. That means there will be bills passed that have no chance of becoming law. So-called messaging bills have a long history in Congress, especially in the polarized environment of recent years. Often, they’re derided (understandably) as hot air or as campaigning by other means. Think about the dozens of times Republicans voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act under Obama or Democrats’ H.R. 1 (For the People Act) after their 2018 midterm wave. But just because something doesn’t have a chance of passing now doesn’t mean voting on it is pointless.
Legislators should think of bills as shots on goal. A keeper in the way doesn’t make shooting for the back of the net symbolic. It’s playing the game. Legislation is by its nature substantive, and members of Congress should keep that in mind. Otherwise, they abdicate their fundamental responsibility to govern and end up like Mike Johnson voting to pass a bill and hoping the Senate changes the language he voted for.