Something happened in the House of Representatives on Thursday. It was quick, and important, and, most of all, it was signifying. It happened in the House Appropriations Committee, and it happened because of the persistence of Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California, who was the only vote against going to war in Afghanistan in 2001. The committee—controlled, as is the entire House—by Republicans, adopted an amendment that would repeal the original Authorization to Use Military Force, against which Lee was the sole opposing vote back in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. From The Week:

The AUMF has been used to justify U.S. action around the world to this day by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, including the downing of a Syrian military jet last week. The repeal amendment was brought by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who was the lone dissenting vote when the bill was passed in 2001; at the time, she argued the resolution "was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events — anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit."

The amendment now goes to the full House for debate. (A similar measure died there last May.) As the U.S. combat in the Middle East has shifted from fighting the Taliban, to fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, to fighting ISIS and (sadly) the Taliban again, Congress has been painfully dilatory in developing a new AUMF to fit the changing circumstances. This has given the last three presidents an almost unlimited hand in waging war against anybody at any time. This has been a long, lonely fight for Congresswoman Lee, who now expresses her happiness that there finally will be a debate in the Congress over "endless war."

What's even more remarkable, as The Hill tells us, is what happened next.

Lawmakers applauded when the amendment was added by voice vote to the defense spending bill, highlighting the frustration many members of Congress feel about the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was initially approved to authorize the response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

It's impossible to resist speculating that the bipartisan nature of the support for Lee's amendment has something to do with a growing distrust among Republicans that the current president* can be trusted with the kind of vast power and license that has accrued to the existing AUMF. After the monkeyshines on the electric Twitter machine this morning, it's hard to blame them.

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page.

Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io