Category: Civil Rights

What is the War Powers Resolution? – History and Major Facts

The War Powers Resolution, also known as the War Powers Act of 1973, is a pivotal piece of U.S. federal legislation designed to reassert Congress’s authority in decisions concerning military engagements and to limit the U.S. president’s authority to commit American forces to armed conflict without congressional approval. .

It was passed in the wake of escalating concerns over the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and executive overreach in wartime decisions.

Although it became law over President Richard Nixon‘s veto, the resolution has sparked significant legal, political, and constitutional debates since its enactment

Understanding the War Powers Resolution requires exploring its historical context, its legislative framework, and how it has been applied and interpreted in the decades since its passage.

Historical Background

The roots of the War Powers Resolution can be traced back to growing frustration among members of Congress over the U.S. executive branch’s increasing control of military decisions, particularly during the Cold War.

The Vietnam War, which began as a limited U.S. advisory role, escalated into one of the most controversial and protracted military engagements in American history, despite the absence of a formal congressional declaration of war. This set the stage for Congress to take action to reassert its constitutional authority over war powers.

Several “No War on Venezuela” protests are being planned across the country today, after the US conducted a large-scale strike on the city of Caracas and captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

“We need to take to the streets and say no to another endless war! The people of this country do not want another war! A U.S. war would cause death and destruction for the people of Venezuela,” the Answer Coalition, one group organizing the protests, wrote in a news release.

Demonstrations are planned for Chicago, New York’s Times Square, outside the White House in Washington, DC, along with city halls and statehouses across the country this afternoon.

Meanwhile, In Congress 

Members of the US Congress on Saturday, Jan. 3, demanded emergency legislative action to prevent the Trump administration from taking further military action in Venezuela after the president threatened a “second wave” of attacks and said the US will control the South American country’s government indefinitely.

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), said that “Congress should vote immediately on a War Powers Resolution to stop” President Donald Trump, whose administration has for months unlawfully bombed boats in international waters and threatened a direct military assault on Venezuela without lawmakers’ approval.

“Trump has no right to take us to war with Venezuela. This is reckless and illegal,” said Casar. “My entire life, politicians have been sending other people’s kids to die in reckless regime change wars. Enough. No new wars.”

A day after the strikes on Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president by elements of the U.S. military, I guess we can now relax over any concerns that our military men and women wouldn’t follow illegal orders. For, the invasion of a sovereign country and the illegal abduction of its leader without Congressional approval (or even notice) by our army and navy are clearly illegal and against the Constitution.

Apparently, our boys and girls wearing US uniforms didn’t stop their actions in this attack against US and international law.

What a sigh of relief.

It was not even two months ago that a squad of Democratic congresspeople produced a video distributed widely telling military and intelligence officers to “refuse illegal orders.” Which is the law. Here’s that video they made:  a video .

By Annie Karni / New York Times / Jan. 3, 2026, 10:46 a.m. ET

While President Trump crowed on Saturday about the dramatic capture of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela by U.S. authorities, Democrats in Congress sounded alarms about the legality of the action and raised questions about recent briefings in which administration officials assured them that they were not seeking regime change in the nation.

Senator Andy Kim, Democrat of New Jersey, accused Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of having “blatantly” lied to Congress when they said the administration’s objective in Venezuela was not about toppling Mr. Maduro. He called the move to oust the Venezuelan leader “disastrous,” arguing that it would further isolate the United States on the global stage.

“Trump rejected our Constitutionally required approval process for armed conflict because the Administration knows the American people overwhelmingly reject risks pulling our nation into another war,” Mr. Kim, a former national security official in the Obama administration, wrote on social media.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat who represents a district in which Venezuelan immigrants cheered for the news, said that Mr. Maduro’s capture was “welcome” but that the way it was done raised serious questions.

Early Saturday, January 3rd, the Trump regime conducted a blatant and illegal act of war against Venezuela by bombing civilian and military sites and illegally kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

This act of aggression is a imperialistic continuation of U.S. policies against the sovereign South American country with attempts to seize and plunder Venezuela’s natural resources and threatens the sovereignty of other countries in Latin America.

The aggression goes against the will of the American people and against our Constitution. Nearly 70% of Americans oppose another war and reject the endless cycle of military interventions carried out in their name.

Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to military action in Venezuela, according to a Quinnipiac poll published in mid-December amid an escalation of U.S. pressure on President Nicolás Maduro.

Sixty-three percent of respondents told Quinnipiac they are against military action against Caracas, which President Donald Trump has repeatedly declined to rule out, with just 25 percent expressing support. And 53 percent of respondents said they opposed the administration’s use of military strikes to kill alleged drug smugglers in international waters.

As domestic and international condemnations of the attack and kidnapping mount up, there are typical sycophantic expressions of support from Trumpian Republicans.

By Donna Frye

As we head into the new year, it’s time once again to let the city council know that we oppose paid parking at our beaches and Mission Bay Park for residents and non-residents alike.

Last year, four councilmembers (LaCava, Foster, Moreno and Elo-Rivera) included paid beach and bay parking in their budget priority memos as a potential revenue source.

Fortunately, on November 18, 2025 the paid parking proposal was not included as part of the council resolution being sent to the mayor’s office for consideration in preparing the FY 2027 budget.

However, as part of the annual budget cycle, the city council is required to update their budget priority memos and provide them to the Independent Budget Analyst (IBA) by January 9.

We need to make sure that the next round of budget priority memos do not include proposals for paid parking at our beaches and Mission Bay Park.

There are many reasons why paid parking at our beaches and Mission Bay Park is a bad idea.

Every Saturday at 10:30 am. San Diego Climate Mobilization Coalition Meetings January 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th and 31st.

Every Saturday 10 am – 12 pm Peace Vigil for Palestine:

The San Diego River Park Foundation has volunteer opportunities in Ocean Beach

Every Sunday 1:30  pm – 4 pm Otay Mesa Vigil Otay Mesa Detention Center

January 1st Thursday – January 4th Sunday 10 am – 6 pm San Diego Auto Show

January 3rd Saturday 5 pm doors open “From Ground Zero” film screening fundraiser for a family in Gaza.

January 5th Monday  12 pm – 1 pm Interfaith Vigil For Earth Justice Event by Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice

By Erwin Chemerinsky / San Diego U-T / January 2, 2025

In one of its most consequential rulings of the year, just before breaking for the holidays last week, the Supreme Court held that President Donald Trump acted improperly in federalizing the National Guard in Illinois and in activating troops across the state.

Although the case centered on the administration’s deployments in Chicago, the court’s ruling suggests that Trump’s actions in Los Angeles and Portland were likewise illegal.

Trump has said that his deployments of troops to these metro areas were just the beginning and that his administration planned to use military force in more cities across the country. The specter of U.S. troops being deployed against its citizens is inconsistent with a long history of not mobilizing the military for purposes of domestic law enforcement. Images of troops patrolling city streets are more often seen under authoritarian regimes, not in the United States. The Supreme Court’s ruling will immediately put a stop to this.

By Michael Smolens / San Diego Union-Tribune / January 2, 2026 

Maybe this time will be different.

For several years, the California Legislature and some cities like San Diego have approved numerous measures aimed at increasing home construction in the hopes that will ease the state’s chronic shortage of affordable housing.

Yet progress hasn’t met the promise as large segments of the population remain priced out of the housing market or struggle to keep up with rent.

A new year has dawned on the heels of more pro-housing regulations at the local and state level, and a vague pledge from President Donald Trump for aggressive policies to make housing more affordable nationwide.

[Please go to original for all links.]

Big real estate brokerage firms are anticipating good things this year.

Redfin has dubbed 2026 “The Great Housing Reset,” while Compass has described it as the start of a “new era,” according to CNN.

That could be. There are a lot of things to further encourage development, potentially boosting the housing stock, and some indicators that suggest the housing market, now in a lull, will pick up.

Note: Author’s views do not necessarily reflect the views of the OB Rag.

By Lisa Mortensen

Our city and county governments are looking for any avenue available to obtain revenue to feed their over-sized staffing.  Rather than pop the staffing balloon, our elected officials would like to tap into our property taxes by placing initiatives on the ballot that would require only a 51% threshold to approve these measures into law that would threaten to uncontrollably increase our property taxes and jeopardize our Prop 13 protections.

Currently the county of San Diego wants to place a measure on the ballot that would increase the real estate sales transfer tax from 55 cents for every $500 in assessed property value to $30.55 for every $500.  This would basically burden both buyers and sellers to have to come up with this excessive additional transfer tax during a for-purchase transaction.

Let’s not forget the trash tax assessment that was placed on our property tax bill ($539 and rising in 2026-2027 tax bill) by just a 51% threshold.

By Geoff Page

2025

The Rag’s editor-in-chief challenged Rag writers to provide “thoughts on the passing of 2025 and what the future portends.” That’s a big Magilla because it was a year like none other in my three-quarters of a century.

I’m not a pessimist or an optimist, some of both. But, this year, it was nearly impossible to have any sense of optimism. However, two important, positive things happened this year in my personal world. My little girl got married and a dog bit me.

By “little girl,” I mean my 32-year-old child who is beginning her seventh year in the legal profession. I did the big walk down the aisle and it was more emotional than I had imagined. It was a great experience, seeing her so happy. I’m not a fan of the institution of marriage, as a rule, but that day was an exception.

After a long professional career as a construction claims expert, I had managed to avoid ever owning – or wearing – a suit. I wore one that day and it felt right. I have a new son-in-law now that we all like and is a perfect fit for my girl.

Much as I love my girl, I will say I don’t envy parents who have to go through weddings for multiple daughters. There is this level of stress…

The dog bite was not pleasant when it occurred.

Here’s a bunch of seemingly unrelated articles that have been sitting in my “in-basket” for a while — some for months. Yet, they deserve attention –so here they are:

It was supposed to be a California utopia. It turned into a ghost town.

By Tessa McLean, California Editor – SFGate / June 17, 2024

Just off the Pearblossom Highway, 75 miles northeast of Los Angeles, six crumbling stone columns rise from patches of dusty brown weeds. Two of the wider set pillars contain capacious brick fireplaces, the blocks deteriorating inside. The foundation of a once-grand building stretches out into the flat plain, carpeted with shards of glass and rusty beer cans. At its northern end, a short staircase leads to nowhere.

From 1914 to 1918, an actual building stood here — a bustling gathering place for California’s most important utopian commune-turned-doomed desert experiment. When wandering the site today, close your eyes and you might be able to imagine happy residents dancing or talking politics on a cool California desert evening, the snow-capped San Gabriel Mountains in the distance.

The remains of a grand hotel and social hall are the only recognizable infrastructure left of the failed town, which is visible even from the highway — if you don’t blink. The foundations of other nearby buildings sink into the ground, faded blue and purple graffiti covering the splintering stone, the lettering disappearing into low concrete walls. From the middle of the ruins, trailers and warehouse structures under the power lines jolt you back to the modern day from any dreams of early 1900s life.