The 63-37 Senate vote on Nov. 29 means that the bipartisan motion will likely come up for further debate in the senate next week. The motion would invoke the War Powers Resolution, asserting congress's right to authorize the commitment of American forces to overseas conflicts.
The 1973 Act says that the president, as commander-in-chief, can only deploy U.S. forces into "hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated" without congressional authorization in cases of national emergency created by an attack on the United States.
Such involvement includes the use of U.S. forces "to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged."
While the United States has historically supported Saudi Arabia as a key strategic ally and a regional counter-balance to the institutionally anti-American Iranian regime, the escalating toll of the conflict has led to mounting criticism of U.S. involvement.
More recently, the apparent murder and dismemberment of dissident Saudi journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi, who was killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2. Many reports have suggests that Khashoggi's death was ordered by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Several senators said that their vote in favor of Wednesday's motion was directly tied to a lack of credible accounts of the Saudi regime's involvement in Khashoggi's death, and the Trump administration's refusal to confront the Saudi's over the matter.
In addition to all the Democrat senators, fourteen Republicans backed the motion, which had failed to pass the senate just nine months ago.
Senator Linsey Graham R-SC voted in favor of the motion, despite telling reporters he did not agree with it and believed the War Powers Act was "unconstitutional."