If you've missed previous opportunities to tell your House Reps to pass H.Res. 922, which would make Presidential war-making without express approval from Congress an impeachable offense, then Just Foreign Policy still helps you do that. And if you still find yourself a little wary of actually defining an impeachable offense, rather than leaving that up to a particular House -- which would not be an indefensible position! -- the bill's authors, Reps. Jones (R-NC) and Gabbard (D-HI) are ready for you: "the absence of impeachment standards creates an appearance that impeachment is a partisan exercise, which undermines its legitimacy and deters its use." That's from the text of H.Res. 922. And yes, this could have applied to President Obama after he bombed Syria in 2015, claiming authority from the 2001 AUMF. Tough toodles! If your values don't inconvenience you every so often, they're probably worthless values.
Meanwhile, the Senate hasn't taken up Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to our Supreme Court yet, but that shouldn't stop you from using the tools in the upper right-hand corner of this page (or the bottom, if you're on a cellphone) to find your Senators' phone numbers and tell them to reject his nomination. We already know that Judge Kavanaugh has said that Presidents shouldn't face criminal charges while in office because they have so much to do already -- an opinion that surely makes our Founders spin in their graves -- but we also know that he has too often deferred to "national security" claims in allowing Executive branch overreach while serving on the D.C. Circuit Court. And that bodes ill for his willingness to be a check on Executive power, which'll be one of his main jobs on the Court. It bodes ill for a lot of other things, too, but a Judge who'll let the President do whatever he likes and the people be damned is the worst kind of Judge.
Finally, Scott Pruitt may be no more at the EPA, but his nefarious legacy (or, at least, that part the courts haven't struck down yet) lives on, not least his proposed "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" rule that would force the EPA to use only "publicly-available" scientific data to make policy decisions. Problem is that a lot of very good scientific studies have a lot of private identifying info in them, and the proposed rule would prevent the EPA from using them! I'd call it clever, except that "evil" is a more accurate term, and I'm too old to praise evil for its cleverness. This "transparency" rule will force the EPA to ignore most scientific studies, which means more "freedom" for polluters and more cancer, more asthma, and more intractable health care issues for the rest of us. And that's why I call it evil. Breast Cancer Action helps you tell the EPA to abandon its so-called "transparency" rule, and let real science drive its decisions.