Greg Jarrett: The Senate was right to reject Democrats’ war powers overreach
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., introduced the resolution in the upper chamber He called for an end to hostilities “Unless expressly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for the use of military force” issued by Congress.
The resolution, which was supported by almost all Democrats, was flawed for several reasons.
First, the president can engage in military action with or without a declaration of war. It does not require authorization from Congress. Second, there is already a valid license to use military force that applies directly to the current conflict. Third, such a decision unconstitutionally violates the principle of separation of powers.
President Donald Trump confirmed that the United States launched strikes 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 be easily proven by revisiting their words. Not long ago, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi She declared that President Barack Obama did not need congressional authorization to bomb Libya in 2011. Democrats in unison mimicked her view.
They maintained their firm stance when Obama launched air strikes in six other countries – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and Syria. president Joe Biden She followed suit with similar strikes, without complaint from Democrats.
But when Trump does so, partisan wolves break down the door of the White House and accuse him of acting outside the law. Hypocrisy is always in vogue on Capitol Hill.
Trump’s critics are wrong when they assert that the president is usurping Congress’ authority to pursue military action. Quite the opposite. He implements those powers granted to him directly by the people through him Constitution.
Democrats are guilty of trying to usurp presidential power.
Constitutional powers
Our Founders deliberately chose to separate responsibility between the President and Congress in all matters of military action. This separation of powers is an integral part of the Constitution drawn up by the Founders in the summer of 1787.
In Article II, Section 1, “executive power” is granted to the president. The key element was discretion in foreign affairs and military action to confront threats. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Chief Justice John Marshall’s famous Marbury v. Madison decision, which made clear that the legislature “does not have the authority to control that discretion.”
Congress was not excluded but was given a limited function. In the original draft, she was empowered to “wage war.” However, James Madison and others successfully argued that such language would give the legislature an outsized role in the conduct of the war, which was merely an executive duty.
Nikki Haley slams Democrats who say Iranian regime ‘poses no threat to America’: ‘Ridiculous’
Therefore, Article I, Section 8 was amended to only give Congress the power to “declare war.” What does that mean? It is a formal declaration of the beginning of a state of war, usually at the request of the president. It has been interpreted narrowly and is by no means the exclusive authority to initiate military action. This falls to the president, although Congress can always deny appropriations to pay for it.
United States issued Declarations of war 11 times in five conflicts. However, more than 200 times, presidents have used their constitutional authority to deploy and carry out aggressive military actions against foreign enemies to protect the national interest and secure the safety of Americans.
Article I does not give Congress the power to prevent the president from doing so.
Hasselbeck confronts host about ‘view’ on Obama bombing Libya amid Iran debate
War Powers Resolution of 1973
During the undeclared “war” in Vietnam, Congress passed a resolution seeking to restrict President Richard Nixon’s authority to conduct military operations. It essentially rewrote the Constitution, giving lawmakers power they did not have while weakening the authority of the commander-in-chief.
It is well established that the legislative authority cannot, through a simple vote, remove the executive power granted to the president under Article II of the Constitution, and at the same time reformulate the authority of Article I. This requires amending the Constitution by amendment.
Representative Brian Mast: Democrats don’t want war powers, they want to wave a white flag
For many years, many prominent Democrats have strongly condemned this The decision was approved by their party In 1973 with majority control in both chambers. In 1988, Senator George Mitchell, Democrat of Maine, who soon became majority leader, criticized the law as blatantly unconstitutional.
“(T)he War Powers Resolution does not work because it exceeds the constitutional limits of Congress’ authority Control of the armed forces “In situations that do not rise to the level of war and because that may undermine 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, since the Supreme Court did not directly rule on this decision, it remains an active but faulty law. No president since 1973 has accepted it as a valid constitutional constraint on his power.
Sean Rand Paul: America is at war, but Americans did not vote for it
Some, including Obama, simply ignored it. All presidents over the past fifty-three years have maintained the right to act unilaterally while still adhering to some of its questionable requirements. That is, notifying Congress within 48 hours and withdrawing troops within 60 to 90 days unless Congress specifically authorizes it.
So far, President Donald Trump has fully complied.
If Congress chooses to call for a pause, Trump can ignore it confidently knowing that precedence and the Constitution will fully justify it. In drafting that venerable document, the framers of the Constitution excluded the legislature from any final authority to end hostilities or war.
Pelosi war highlights exposed twists in Obama-era clip that contrasts with Trump’s criticism of Iran
Authorization to use military force
Right after that September 11, 2001 attacksCongress passed a joint resolution known as the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). It granted the president exclusive and extraordinary powers to target those groups and countries that “assisted terrorist attacks…or sheltered” the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks. The stated goal was “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.”
One need only read the 9/11 Commission report to remember Iran’s complicity. For years, the government in Tehran has actively aided and abetted deadly attacks on America by providing al-Qaeda terrorists extensive training, intelligence, transit, logistics, weapons, and financing. The report explained that some of the terrorists supported by Iran were the same “future hijackers of the September 11 attacks.”
Click here for more Fox News opinions
When the United States invaded Afghanistan, many of Al Qaeda’s senior leaders fled to neighboring Iran, where they received safe haven.
As the world The biggest sponsor of terrorism Iran has waged a bloody war against the United States for 47 years. It, alone and through its proxies and militias, has attacked our bases, targeted our citizens, kidnapped our diplomats, and claimed more American lives 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 obtain nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of using them against the United States and our staunch ally Israel. The evidence for this is overwhelming.
For all these reasons, President Trump has broad constitutional authority—indeed, a positive duty—to take preemptive action to end the evil threat once and for all.
Related article
Post Comment