When the United States directed military operations against three of Iran’s nuclear facilities under the orders of President Donald Trump, it raised eyebrows among his Democratic opposition in Congress. The underlying concern being, the President’s actions may have crossed constitutional boundaries by pushing the nation towards war. Several democratic leaders, such as Katherine Clark, the Deputy Democrat in the House, and Chris van Hollen, Senator from Maryland, have openly criticized Trump’s move as ‘unauthorized and unconstitutional.’ Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York voiced even stronger objections, asserting that Trump’s reckless behavior could potentially draw the US into a protracted war that could become grounds for impeachment.
The Democrats’ argument, while compelling, is somewhat undermined by the fact that Democratic presidents have not hesitated to exercise the same powers in the past. There is a long-standing record of presidents from both major parties unilaterally leading the country into armed conflict over the past several decades.
The War Powers Resolution, which no US president has openly accepted as legally binding since its inception, cast a significant light on this ongoing issue. For example, in February 2024, President Joe Biden commanded the US military to strike Houthi rebels in Yemen amid their attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea. Some Democrats did raise objections to Biden’s actions, viewing them as an excessive exertion of executive power.
Among the Democrats who raised concerns about Biden’s actions were Representative Ro Khanna of California, Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, and Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. However, these objections failed to result in any substantive changes. Congress was unable to muster the support necessary to pass an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to endorse the attacks. This failure largely originated from the Democrats’ reluctance to tarnish Biden’s image during his re-election campaign.
When Trump assumed office in January, the frequency of military operations without Congressional approval escalated. The crux of the matter lies in an elemental but unresolved constitutional debate: who essentially has the power to commence military actions, the Congress or the President?
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that ‘The Congress shall have Power…To declare War.’ In a concerted effort to curtail the President’s warfare powers in 1973, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution (WPR) citing this specific clause. While the WPR doesn’t prohibit Presidents from initiating military actions, it mandates them to inform Congress within two days and terminate the operation within 90 days unless Congressional approval is obtained. These requirements notwithstanding, no President has accepted the WPR’s mandates until now.
Presidents instead have countered with Article II of the Constitution, which they argue grants them the legal authority to utilize the Armed Forces without needing Congressional approval. For Democrats to strengthen their argument, they would have to maintain total consistency across all branches of government. However, in truth, both parties have been circumventing this issue.
One notable instance was Democratic President Barack Obama, who perhaps most conspicuously skirted Congress’s foresight on force usage. In 2011, he commanded the military to strike against Libyan government forces without obtaining Congressional authorization. He dubiously asserted that the WPR’s reporting requirement did not apply as the US wasn’t engaged in ‘hostilities’ despite the fact that US forces were engaging in combat operations. Even Obama’s office of legal counsel diverged from this viewpoint.
Obama went further by expanding the Libya mission to plan for the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi, the reigning Libyan dictator, still without obtaining Congressional approval. Ironically, Obama as a senatorial candidate in 2007 stated ‘The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.’
This shifting of sides by Obama is not surprising nor an isolated phenomenon; Presidents often dismiss Congress concerning force employment. Indeed, post World War II, and more so after the Cold War, numerous U.S. Presidents willingly sent troops into danger zones without seeking Congress’s consent.
The post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) has frequently been referenced by Presidents in recent times to rationalize military strikes from the Middle East to Africa’s Horn. It has come to serve as a one-size-fits-all legal cover for any military action. It wouldn’t be surprising if Trump used it to justify the Iran attack, should he even choose to abide by the WPR’s reporting requirements. Numerous unsuccessful attempts have been made by Congress to revoke the 2001 AUMF to reassert its war oversight function.
Therefore, while the Democrats’ contention is not entirely baseless, it is comparable to closing the barn doors after the horses have bolted. Their primary argument that Trump is expanding the powers of the executive branch and ignoring congressional oversight certainly holds water. The U.S. airstrikes on Iran indeed invite criticism from various other perspectives. For instance, Trump’s public threats of an impending attack appear to have caused Iranian officials to conceal their enriched uranium resources.
Additionally, Trump’s discussions on potential regime change in Iran raise apprehensions of ‘mission creep.’ However, if Democrats genuinely aspire to reinstate Congress’s involvement in making war decisions, the need for maintaining consistent arguments across all federal branches becomes paramount. For a start, they should insist that Trump seek Congressional authorization not only for past actions but also for future military operations. This approach could potentially induce some Republicans to ally with such a plan.
Yet, the Democrats’ strong outcry against the constitutionality of Trump’s decisions and the floating of impeachment talks may likely find few receptive audiences. The momentum for championing the cause of restoring Congress’s war declaring authority may be challenging to sustain considering both parties’ historical records.
The post Trump’s Controversial Military Strike on Iran Ignites Constitutional Debate appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
