PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text: CR S96-97)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 8, 2020
This resolution urges the President to de-escalate tensions with Iran rather than threaten acts of war and violations of international law.
Specifically, the resolution condemns the President's threats to destroy important Iranian cultural sites and demands that the President refrain from violating the law of armed conflict. Further, it affirms that the destruction of cultural heritage is both morally wrong and a violation of international law and that no violation of the law of armed conflict or human-rights violation by Iran justifies similar violations by any other state.
People & committees
Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text: CR S96-97)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.Res.465 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.Res.465 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.Res.465 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.Res.465 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.