The Senate on March 4 wisely rejected a new war powers resolution aimed at halting or limiting President Donald Trump’s ability to carry out further military strikes against Iran. A House version also failed.
The House resolution, introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., called for a cessation of hostilities “unless expressly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for the use of military force” issued by Congress.
The resolution, supported by almost all Democrats, was flawed for several reasons.
First, the president can take military action, with or without a declaration of war. He doesn’t need congressional approval. Second, there is already a valid authorization for the use of military force that directly applies to the current conflict. Third, such a resolution unconstitutionally violates the separation of powers.
President Donald Trump confirmed that the US launched attacks on Iran on Saturday, February 28, 2026. Trump is reportedly considering supporting militias in Iran to overthrow the regime. (Getty Images)
The fallacy of the Democrats’ argument can easily be demonstrated by reviewing their own words. Not long ago, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that President Barack Obama did not need congressional approval to bomb Libya in 2011. Democrats unanimously imitated her position.
They maintained their unwavering position as Obama launched airstrikes in six other countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and Syria. President Joe Biden followed suit with similar strikes, and without any complaint from Democrats.
But when Trump does it, the partisan wolves scratch at the White House door and accuse him of acting lawlessly. Hypocrisy is always in fashion on Capitol Hill.
TRUMP’S IRAN ATTACK RECEIVES LEGAL COVER AS SCHOLARS SAY ARTICLE II PLAYBOOK COVERS THE OBAMA ERA AND BEYOND
Critics of Trump are wrong when they claim that the president is usurping Congress’s power to take military action. On the contrary. He exercises the powers conferred on him directly by the people by the Constitution.
It is the Democrats who are guilty of attempting to usurp presidential power.
Constitutional powers
PENTAGON GRILD POLICY HEAD AS DEM CLAIMS TRUMP BROKE PROMISE TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN
Our Founding Framers consciously chose to separate responsibility between the President and Congress on all matters of military action. This separation of powers is enshrined in the Constitution that the Founders wrote in the summer of 1787.
Article II, Section 1, granted “executive power” to the President. An essential element was discretionary authority over foreign affairs and military action to counter threats. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Chief Justice John Marshall’s famous decision Marbury v. Madison, which explained that the legislature “has no power to check that discretion.”
Congress was not left out, but was given a limited function. In the original draft, it was given the authority to ‘wage war’. However, James Madison and others successfully argued that such language would give the legislature an outsized role in waging war, which was purely an executive function.
NIKKI HALEY SLAMS DEMOCRATS WHO SAY THE Iranian REGIME ‘WAS NOT A THREAT TO AMERICA’: ‘ABSURD’
Article I, Section 8 was therefore amended to give Congress only the power to “declare war.” What does that mean? It is a formal proclamation to initiate a state of war, usually at the request of the president. It is interpreted narrowly and is by no means the exclusive authority to take military action. That is up to the president, although Congress can always refuse appropriations to pay for it.
The US has declared war eleven times in five conflicts. Yet presidents have invoked their own constitutional authority more than 200 times to initiate and carry out aggressive military actions against foreign enemies to protect the national interests and ensure American security.
Article I does not give Congress the power to prevent a president from doing this.
HASSELBECK CONFONTONTS HOSTIN ON ‘THE VIEW’ ON OBAMA BOMBING LIBYA AGAINST IRAN DEBATE
War Powers Resolution of 1973
During the undeclared “war” in Vietnam, Congress passed a resolution aimed at limiting President Richard Nixon’s power to conduct military operations. It essentially rewrote the Constitution, giving lawmakers powers they don’t have while diluting the authority of the commander in chief.
It is well established that the legislature cannot, by a simple vote, take away the executive power vested in the President under Article II of the Constitution and at the same time recast the authority of Article I. This would require amending the Constitution by means of an amendment.
REP BRIAN MAST: Democrats don’t want war powers, they want to wave a white flag
For years, many prominent Democrats have vigorously denounced the resolution their party passed in 1973 with majority control of both chambers. In 1988, Sen. George Mitchell, D-Maine, soon to become majority leader, criticized it as blatantly unconstitutional.
“[T]The War Powers Resolution does not work because it exceeds the constitutional limits of Congress’s power to control the armed forces in situations where there is no war, and because it potentially undermines our ability to effectively defend our national interests,” Mitchell said.
Mitchell, who was once a federal judge and knew a thing or two about the Constitution, was right. However, because the Supreme Court never directly ruled on the resolution, it remains an active but misguided law. Since 1973, no president has accepted it as a valid constitutional limitation on their power.
SEN RAND PAUL: AMERICA IS AT WAR, BUT AMERICANS DIDN’T VOTE FOR IT
Some, including Obama, simply ignored it. All presidents over the past 53 years have reserved the right to act unilaterally while still adhering to some of its questionable demands. That is, notification to Congress within 48 hours and withdrawal of troops within 60 to 90 days unless specifically authorized by Congress.
So far, President Donald Trump has fully complied.
If Congress chooses to require a freeze, Trump can ignore it, confident that both the preemption and the Constitution would fully justify it. In drafting that esteemed document, the Framers excluded the legislature from any final power to end hostilities or war.
PELOSI’S WAR FORCES FLIP-FLOP EXPOSED IN RESURRECTED OBAMA-ERA CLIP IS IN THE PRESENCE OF TRUMP CRITICISM OF IRAN
Authorization for the use of military force
Immediately following the attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It granted the president exclusive and extraordinary powers to target those groups and nations that “aided the terrorist attacks… or harbored the perpetrators of September 11.” Its stated purpose was to “prevent all future acts of international terrorism against the United States.”
One only has to read the 9/11 Commission report to be reminded of Iran’s complicity. For years, the government in Tehran has actively supported and encouraged deadly attacks on America by providing Al Qaeda terrorists with extensive training, intelligence, transportation, logistics, weapons and financing. Some of the terrorists Iran supported were the very same “future September 11 hijackers,” the report said.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
When the US invaded Afghanistan, several top al-Qaeda leaders fled to neighboring Iran, where they were given safe haven.
As the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism, Iran has been waging a blood-soaked war against the United States for 47 years. On its own and through its menacing allies and militias, it has attacked our bases, targeted our citizens, kidnapped our diplomats, and claimed the lives of more Americans than any terrorist regime on earth.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The maniacal leadership has spent decades building a deadly arsenal of ballistic missiles and attempting to acquire nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of using them against the United States and our close ally, Israel. The evidence of this is overwhelming.
For all these reasons, President Trump has broad constitutional authority—and even an affirmative duty—to take preventive action to end the sinister threat once and for all.
Related article
