PoliticalRepoPoliticalRepo

United States · Bill · HR

H.R. 2859 (112th)

Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force

referredUnited States· United States Congress· EN

Introduced

7 September 2011

Last action

7 September 2011 · Introduced

Status

Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Sponsors

Barbara Lee, WALTER JONES, JOHN CONYERS, Raúl Grijalva, Rep. Honda, Michael M. [D-CA-17], Rep. Woolsey, Lynn C. [D-CA-6], Rep. Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [D-IL-2], Rep. McDermott, Jim [D-WA-7], JOHN LEWIS, Rep. Edwards, Donna F. [D-MD-4], Rep. Stark, Fortney Pete [D-CA-9], Rep. Filner, Bob [D-CA-51], Maxine Waters, Keith Ellison, Rep. Kucinich, Dennis J. [D-OH-10], Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1], JOSE SERRANO, Rep. Braley, Bruce L. [D-IA-1], Rep. Towns, Edolphus [D-NY-11]

Subjects

Defence, Rule of law

Source updated

14 August 2025

Defence · Rule of law

Summary

Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force - States that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (P.L. 107-40) has been used to justify an open-ended authorization for the use of military force and such an interpretation is inconsistent with the authority of Congress to declare war and make all laws for executing powers vested by the Constitution in the U.S. government. Repeals the Authorization for Use of Military Force (P.L. 107-40), effective 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

This text is taken from the official record. PoliticalRepo does not editorialize.

Timeline

  1. 7 September 2011

    Introduced

    Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

    Source: IntroReferral

  2. 7 September 2011

    Introduced

    Introduced in House

    Source: IntroReferral

  3. 7 September 2011

    Introduced

    Introduced in House

    Source: IntroReferral

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

Documents

3 official files

Introduced in House (text)

View fileDownload file

Sponsors

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.

Sources

PoliticalRepo is an index and interpretation layer, not the authoritative legal source.