Congress has never authorized the use of military force against Iran, and in the initial House version of the 2020 NDAA, it was explicitly noted that there is no authorization for that war. But Thursday night rolled around, and the Trump Administration attacked and killed Iran’s top general in a strike on Baghdad International Airport.
An unauthorized attack, but it’s more than that, as Congress was neither consulted about nor informed of Thursday’s attack. That’s par for the course for an administration that has scorned the very idea of Congressional authority in war-making time and again.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is saying he’s trying to set up a classified, closed-door briefing about the attack. That’s well after the fact, and McConnell already followed the Senate hawks in endorsing the killing before even getting such a briefing. It’s not clear, then, what the point would even be.
More to the point, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) is introducing a resolution aimed at blocking the war, saying that the administration must not attack Iran without an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). There is no sign an AUMF is being considered.
The Kaine resolution would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate in practice, otherwise it would face the fate of similar resolutions on the unauthorized Yemen War, being vetoed by Trump.
And while it may be an uphill battle to muster a two-thirds majority in the Senate to oppose the Iran War, the fact that they’re trying at all is at least indication that there is some debate that will be had on the new war. America may not have gotten this debate before the US attacked, but there will be a chance to express disapproval for the conflict.
The Trump Administration likely appreciates that this war they’re careening toward would be unpopular, which is why officials have styled their killings as “defensive” actions, and why President Trump’s statement claimed he attacked the Baghdad Airport to “stop a war.” This will allow them to pretend this was something other than a plain war of choice.
Trump….war criminal…
The mantle kind of falls upon any who enter the Oval Office as CinC.
Obama… Cheney/Bush the Lesser… BillyBobb… Bush the Elder and Bozo… The Peanut Farmer…. . Like Mr Brockland put it; the list goes on and on and on.
Yes, don’t leave out anyone since before Lincoln…at least.
If there is a war with Iran I hope all the politicians and soldiers involved get killed, because they’re scum and not human beings.
Unfortunately soldiers exist so politicians don’t have to bleed.
If soldiers weren’t mindless sheep collecting welfare checks for assassinations they could do something about that.
“The Kaine resolution would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate in practice, otherwise it would face the fate of similar resolutions on the unauthorized Yemen War.”
While Ditz may be correct that a resolution forbidding the use of force against Iran, he is simply wrong when it comes to the Yemen Resolution needing to over ride a veto.
War Powers Resolution of 1973 – Section 5(c) Notwithstanding subsection ( b ) , at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed y the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
Definition of the term concurrent resolution from senate.gov glossary –
concurrent resolution – A legislative measure, designated “S. Con. Res.” and numbered consecutively upon introduction, generally employed to address the sentiments of both chambers, to deal with issues or matters affecting both houses, such as a concurrent budget resolution, or to create a temporary joint committee. Concurrent resolutions are not submitted to the president and thus do not have the force of law.
That said the text of the Yemen Resolution refers to this in section(7) of S. J. RES. 7:
(7) Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)) states that “at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs”.
Which is likely where the smarmy war mongers try and slip out of following the law, by stating that S.J. Rez 7 is not a concurrent resolution and therefore does not apply to section 5 of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. One more example of spineless congress pretending to take action for their voters knowing full well they are doing nothing.
Of course involvement in Yemen is still subject to section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 –
(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is
required to be submitted pursuant to section 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , whichever is
earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed
Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required
to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has
enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed
Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is
physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the
United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more
than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certi-
fies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity
respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the
continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about
a prompt removal of such forces.
So Trump is still Usurping War Powers in his involvement in Yemen despite the congressional Malarkey, as referred to in S.J. Rez 7 –
(2) Congress has not declared war with respect to, or provided a specific statutory authorization for, the conflict between military forces led by Saudi Arabia, including forces from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Senegal, and Sudan (the Saudi-led coalition), against the Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah, in the Republic of Yemen
“a concurrent resolution does not require presidential signature.”
“Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.” — Article I, Section 7, US Constitution
Original post before edit was correct regarding concurrent resolutions not requiring presidential signature, but S.J. Rez 7 was Joint Resolution and so subject. Edited to be more precise. Of course senate.gov may be unaware of the law so the constitution probably more accurate. Go figure.
“Original post before edit was correct regarding concurrent resolutions not requiring presidential signature”
The Constitution specifically says they do: “Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary” is pretty straightforward.
https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/the-legislative-process/bills-resolutions
https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/concurrent_resolution.htm
Both the House and Senate specifically state that concurrent resolutions do not require presidential signature and do not carry the weight of law, hence their ability to not need presidential signature. The use of them to once provide legislative veto powers was in 83 found unconstitutional, but doesn’t change that they are not even presented to the president for signing, just that their use is limited to internal matters and meaningless gestures.
“Both the House and Senate specifically state that concurrent resolutions do not require presidential signature”
But the Constitution says the opposite.
Wrong in the case of concurrent resolutions as it pertains to the war powers resolution of ’73(not adjudicated).
Article 1 section 8(10) states that congress shall have the power to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
The law of Nations as it pertains to what is recognized at the time of freezing at the ratification of the constitution states (as it relates to the war powers act section 5(c):
No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.(general principles taken from Blackstone’s ‘Commentaries’
By passing a concurrent resolution congress is not passing a law to take effect saying their is no war, and therefore subject to Article 1, section 7(2) but rather exorcising their duty under Article 1 section 8(10) to determine the offense and punishment of infractions against the Laws of nations and state that no change from state of peace to state of war has occurred do to undeclared acts of war committed against the U.S.
This is likely the distinction that modern interpretation of war powers in the constitution gets wrong and leads them to conclusions different from the first 4 presidents who clearly stated that a change from a state of war to a state of peace is the province of the legislature not the president.
Wrong according to this, that and the other.
Right according to the Constitution.
The WPA has never stopped a war and is effectively a dead letter law useful only for antiwar posturing, not antiwar action.
Kaine’s bill is potentially useful, but only as a non-binding statement of popular will. Its still essentially antiwar posturing.
The President has full tactical control of the armed forces and can attack whomever and wherever under the Constitution. However, an attack on Iran is sufficiently impractical as to be highly unlikely.
It would be far more effective to declare Iran a ‘no-pay, no-compensation ‘ zone for troops, ordinance, and equipment save for medical benefits. Every missile fired into Iran is one less of its type to be bought, etc..
First half is certainly true. That the President has the authority to attack whomever and wherever under the Constitution is simply false. As stated by Paterson “. . . It is the exclusive province of congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.” (United States v. Smith, 1806.) This is repeated time and again by Presidents (1st,3rd,4th), Supreme Court Justices, framers ect. Any study of the Laws of Nations that were extensively called upon in debates over war and treaty powers makes entirely clear that only a war declared by the sovereign of a nation( the sovereign power of declaration of war being vested in congress) can be considered to be lawful, thus any undeclared assault on a foreign nation is a violation of the Laws of Nations that the executive is expected to execute in pursuance of his duties to uphold and enforce the Constitution.
Logically, no. Define state of war or state of peace – legally under U.S. law. The U.S. has entered into may warlike situations without a Declaration of War which usually defines changing from a state of peace to a state of war.
Define where the Laws of Nations enters into the U.S. penal code. The U.S. signed the UN treaties on human rights and conventions of war – but where’s their translation into the penal code at the highest levels of governance? Does the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate have the right to arrest the President for warmaking without Congressional approval? Nope.
Keane could pass a law that says, if the President undertakes military action in anger against Iran (or any other sovereign nation), Congress shall interpret this as a Declaration of War against that nation on behalf of Congress that enters the U.S. into a state of war. They could recognize a condition of fact as a condition of law.
But then, so what? They can pass another law to undeclare war, but the President directs the troops, not Congress. Congress has no authority to direct military forces. The United States was originally devised hostile to a standing military; after the Federalists won that point, no formal provisions were made to deal with having a standing military.
Otherwise, the U.S. enters into actions of war against Iran not unlike any other U.S. military misadventure of history. Undeclared military actions that were colloquially and realistically war – but not legally defined under the U.S. system of law, as a state of war.
There’s no power of enforcement at the Legislative level save a political decision by Congress and the Senate to impeach the President, broadly removing him from legal command of the armed forces and legal protection of the Secret Service.
The only other way is to require the Pentagon to tally the costs of such a war such that funds may be withheld from it even as the war is ongoing. Still iffy, as that’s still Congress giving orders to the military, but, touching on their responsibility to fund troops. Depending on the degree to which military accounting is outsourced to civilian contractors, such a measure might pass a Supreme Court challenge.
If so affirmed by courts, such a war accounting law would make soldiers fighting, do so on a purely volunteer basis while no equipment and ordinance would be purchased to replace that spent. Eventually the war machine would sputter to a halt.
Law requires enforcement provisions, and the only true checks on Presidential warmaking powers are to defund the military – a political question if ever there was one. Or, impeach the President; that is, full impeachment by Congress and Senate, not the make believe Congress-only impeachment over Ukraine-gate. Another political question.
There’s sometimes a very stark difference between factual, objective reality and legally enforceable reality, that ‘expectations’ are wildly out of touch with. Till they smack upside the head.
Wont argue with you over what is done in practice, nor how the executive, legislative, judicial, state gov. and individual citizens choose to allow utter usurpation of constitutional duties. Doesn’t change constitutionality of the matter and I objected only to your saying Under the constitution, had you said despite the Constitution I would have no argument against it.
That said the legal definition of war would the meaning and understanding of the term when written by those who wrote it, that being –
On ‘Declaring War’ “Laws of Nations” Emer de Vettel Chapter 4 1st paragraph – “3. The ruler of the nation, as we have observed, ought maturely to consider whether it be for the advantage of the state to prosecute his right by force of arms. But all this is not sufficient. As it is possible that the present fear of our arms may make an impression on the mind of our adversary, and induce him to do us justice,—we owe this farther regard to humanity, and especially to the lives and peace of the subjects, to declare to that unjust nation, or its chief, that we are at length going to have recourse to the last remedy, and make use of open force for the purpose of bringing him to reason. This is called declaring war.”
From Hamilton in Pacificus referencing the duty of the executive to uphold the Laws of Nation and the express nature of congresses prerogative to ‘declare war,’ or more specifically to change the nation from a state of peace to a state of war- ‘ While therefore the Legislature can alone declare war, can alone actually transfer the nation from a state of Peace to a state of War—it belongs to the “Executive Power,” to do whatever else the laws of Nations cooperating with the Treaties of the Country enjoin, in the intercourse of the UStates with foreign Powers.
As for in US legal code, no definition of terms have been employed as to declaring war in regards to the Constitution(that I am aware of,no scholar here…) only the recognition that congress passing AUMFs is considered a fulfillment of the constitution
You’re extremely well read, but arts degree learning does not deliver
the needed practical applied knowledge. Lawmakers simply have to be more aggressive at making realistic applied antiwar laws.
The U.S. Constitution is the foundational law document guiding how
and what laws may be made under the Republic of the United States of
America. International law has limited binding authority over the U.S.;
its made and enforced by consensus of the most powerful nations of the
day. No-one tells the U.S. where to go, except the Israel lobby.
United States versus Smith (1806) involved a Colonel William Smith,
not the President, and merely faulted Smith for following a Presidential
Order the law at the time forbade. The President was not held responsible; a solder was. This was also an intermediate Circuit Court decision, not Supreme Court, decision.
Emer de Vettel wasn’t even an
American and “The Law of Nations” wasn’t even signed onto as a treaty.
The Declaration, Preamble, and Federalist Papers aren’t binding law
either. Under rule of law, the discrete legal provisions are the only
words that matter.
Where legally binding words fall into dispute, the
courts are turned to, but the Judicial Branch is not activist under U.S.
law; they may not take the place of the Legislative Branch to fill in
blanks in the Constitution or legislation. If they did, then yes, your observations would be far more valid insofar as what should guide their decisions.
These blanks are referred to generally as ‘political questions’. The political question doctrine is the main loophole mechanism of the U.S. Constitution. However, the Constitution is clear; the President is Commander in Chief insofar as the Army, Navy and Militia translates into modern military services.
At the end of the day, that’s what’s left standing after years of whittling the philosophical foundations of the Constitution to nothing. Commander in Chief needs clear defining, or re-defining, at a legislative level to pass the Supreme Court, or failing that, as a Constitutional amendment, in order to meet your ideal of law in practice.
Wars are expensive.
What congress can and must do is vote no on all military spending bills until we spend no more on war than any other country. They should also dump all their current reasons behind impeachment and replace them, the impeachment should be over Trump ordering acts of aggression against Iran and Iraq in violation of the War Powers Act.
Congress would never impeach on grounds of a war; that would set a precedent.
Trump consulted Congress, but only Republicans in Congress. We know already that he consulted McConnell and Lindsey Graham.
Trump did not consult Democrats. Evidently he does not trust them, any more than they trust him.
This shows that the US government system has broken down with distrust and open hostility of partisans.
What, the war donkeys would say no, don’t do it?
Wonder if Trump consulted Senator Rand Paul, though. He might have opposed, though he’s a lot more wishy washy than his father.
Five months ago, California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited this very type of action, but it was removed from the final bill.
“Any member who voted for the NDAA — a blank check — can’t now express dismay that Trump may have launched another war in the Middle East,” Khanna wrote on Twitter after Suleimani’s assassination. “My Amendment, which was stripped, would have cut off $$ for any offensive attack against Iran including against officials like Soleimani.”
https://theintercept.com/2020/01/03/qassim-suleimani-assassination-trump-administration-war/
Of course, the Pentagon is good at hiding costs. There’s no overt ‘Assassinations Budget’ to cut.
True. But if there was something specific about an Iran attack in the NDAA, maybe there would have been second(and third)thoughts about pulling the trigger on the attack itself
So? Congress like it that way. They only speak in whichever way the political wind blows. The ill winds of partisanship only makes things worse.
There is no Iran war looming, though. This is a war over who gets to stay in Iraq; the U.S./KSA/Israel or Iran.
Odds are it will settle down to the way it was before, simmering beneath the surface through Iraqi politics. Removing Soleimani levels the playing field for the U.S.; they may pressure the Shia PMUs, but that’s a bargaining position to stay.
Neither the U.S. or Iran is well positioned to fight a war. All they can do is keep bumping each other’s elbows hoping the other guy’s trigger finger goes off first. Unfortunately, Iraqis are in the middle.
The U.S. moreso than Iran. Iran would be counting on Russian backup, while the U.S. would be trying to remove any pretext for Russian aid to Iran. While war is not practical for either the U.S. or Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel obviously think differently.
Only the Iraqis can turn things around, by evicting the U.S. military presence and closing the U.S. embassy. Then, they could focus on dealing with Iran on their own terms, not terms set by the U.S./KSA/Israel.
The main impediment to the U.S. position in the Middle East, is that its not a purely American best-interest position. Until that is fixed, the U.S. cannot function as a rational geopolitical player, even a rational imperial one.
Congress is confused, they want to remove him because he is a loose cannon. but seem to be impressed with his recent decisions. It’s a love/hate relation.
Fascist Israeli American President making predictions over eight years into the future:
https://youtu.be/p5bo3MzTVBQ
Like a true sociopath pointing the finger at your opponent at what you will do.
How can this in any way benefit the USA? Israel is the only country supporting the US behavior that I have noticed.
Don’t forget Saudi Arabia. We are their puppets too.
I am ashamed of my country….again.
Impressive mental gymnastics. Someone not familiar with AUMF and the intricacies of this particular operation might be lead to believe you are correct. Those who take the time to research these stories know better.
Typical to see the anti-war left protesting NOW that a democrat is NOT starting/waging the wars.