Recent actions have led to refreshing conversations about the often overlooked War Powers Act, a piece of legislation from the early 1970s that is designed to share military command between the president and Congress. While critics are quick to suggest that President Trump may have undermined this law by acting of his own accord, his supporters counteract this by attributing his actions to a pressing threat and to his desire to circumvent any drawn-out conflict. Following the announcement from President Trump on Monday promising a ‘complete and total ceasefire’ between Israel and Iran within a day, there remains a heightened sense of anticipation in Congress over his approach. A significant Senate vote is anticipated later in the week, with a Democratic Iran war powers resolution on the table, aimed at preserving a balance of power between Trump and Iran.
The War Powers Act was established in the era following American engagement in Vietnam, with its main objective to frame the president’s engagement with Congress in mobilizing troops, provided a declaration of war had not been previously issued. In interpretation, it implies that both Congress and the President should collectively apply their judgement in committing troops into ‘hostilities.’ Following the Act’s edict, the president should, in all feasible instances, ‘consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.’ However, Scott Anderson, a scholar from the Brookings Institution pointed out that the War Powers Resolution gives significant leeway.
Recent history has seen many Presidents barely consult with Congress on many instances of military action. The phrasing of this age-old statute is generally considered sufficiently vague and open to interpretation making it hard to dispute against the spirit of the War Powers Resolution. Typically, in the absence of an outright Declaration of War or pre-authorized troop deployment by Congress, it is customary for the president to send a written report to Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops to explain their decision.
In line with this practice, when President Trump directed air strikes in Yemen’s Houthi-occupied areas in March, he wrote a letter to congressional leadership clarifying his motives and summarizing his instructions to the Department of Defense. The War Powers Act stipulates that if Congress does not sanction any further action within a span of 60 to 90 days, the president is required to ‘terminate any use’ of armed forces. This is a critical part of the War Powers Resolution, asserted Scott Anderson.
Since the declaration of war during World War II, while there has been no explicit declaration of war from Congress against another nation, various U.S. presidents have submitted many reports as per the War Powers Resolution since its inception in 1973, which saw President Richard Nixon’s veto overridden. Through clever utilization of the ambiguous language found within the War Powers Resolution, presidents have generated the precedent to justify their overseas activities.
For instance, in 1980, then-President Jimmy Carter defended that a rescue mission to save hostages from Iran did not necessitate consulting with Congress, as it was not considered an act of war according to the Congressional Research Service. A similar event took place with President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks when he utilized war powers to convince Congress to approve a military strike against Iraq in 2002.
Under the Obama administration, the President faced intense pressure to cease operations in Libya after only 90 days. But his team artfully made their case that the usage of airpower in Libya did not constitute ‘hostilities’ as outlined in the War Powers Resolution. This issue is largely subjective and depends on your viewpoint.
President Trump’s recent actions in Iran have earned commendations especially from his Republican colleagues and rebukes from Democrats, though it’s not necessarily divided along party lines. Trump raised discussions of a regime change in Iran on Sunday, followed by an announcement on Monday that Israel and Iran are committing to a ‘complete and total’ ceasefire to be implemented within the next 24 hours.
Despite this, a significant Senate vote may potentially take place this week, considering a resolution guiding the withdrawal of U.S. forces from unrecognized engagements against Iran. One congressman even mentioned, ‘There will be Republicans who will support it.’ Yet, he added, ‘this is as fluid a vote as I’ve been involved with during my time here, because the facts are changing every day.’
Getting this resolution passed may pose a challenge, especially as Republicans laud Trump following the news of the ceasefire. Even before that, there were those who came to the defense of Trump’s actions on Monday, arguing that he’s operating within his authority.
Senator John Kennedy expressed, ‘There’s always a tension between Congress’ power to declare war and the president’s power as commander in chief.’ He further added, ‘I think the White House contacted its people, as many people as they could.’
A parallel bipartisan resolution in the House — led by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie — might soon follow, although Massie indicated on Monday that he might step down from this initiative if peace is effected.
However, Rep. Khanna emphasized on the need for a vote saying, ‘In case of a conflict in the future, we need to be on record saying no offensive war in Iran without prior authorization.’ His words reflect a general sentiment that even in times of peace, preparedness is key and will always remain an important virtue.
The post Trump Promises ‘Complete and Total Ceasefire’ between Israel and Iran appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
