President Donald Trump made fun of Israel’s nuclear war when he asked if he would join the country in the White House’s lawn for a press conference.
“I may do it. He said on Wednesday, “I may not.”
Trump is responsible for making the decision to engage in the war, according to US officials and the president’s allies, who have also stressed that they can trust his instincts.
“He is the singular guiding hand about what will be occurring from this point forward”, Department of State spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters on Tuesday.
However, antiwar advocates have been making the case that Congress must decide whether or not war or peace is best for Trump over all other options.
Some lawmakers are reaffirming their congressional authority under the War Powers Act as Trump more and more publicly makes hints about the possibility of US involvement in the conflict.
But what are the laws guiding a declaration of war, and could Trump get the US involved in the war without the consent of Congress?
What information is necessary about US law that governs war decisions.
What is stated in the US Constitution?
Section 1 of the US Constitution, which established the legislative branch of the government and outlines its duties, says Congress has the power to “declare war”.
Some opponents claim that the president has the authority to appoint lawmakers over US military actions.
When did the US last declare war in writing?
In 1942, during World War II. Since then, the US has launched strikes and interventions in numerous nations, including Serbia, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, while also going to war in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
What authority does the president have in a war?
According to Article II of the constitution, the president is designated “commander in chief” of the armed forces.
Presidents are able to direct the military to react to threats and attacks. Beyond that, Congress restates some of their authority to declare war. Article II empowers them to direct military operations once Congress has authorised a war. Under the direction of lawmakers, they are in charge of mobilizing the military.
Despite this, previous presidents have used their military’s ability to launch attacks on an emergency basis to defend themselves or repel threats.
How has the US sent soldiers into Iraq and other places without formal declarations of war?
Through legislation known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Congress may grant the president the authority to use the military for specific purposes without declaring war.
For instance, Congress passed an AUMF that gave then-President George W. Bush broad authority to start what would become the “war on terror” at the world level in 2001 in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001.
And one year later, it passed another AUMF allowing the use of the military against the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which became the basis of the 2003 invasion.
Presidents can still rely on the two authorizations to carry out strikes without first obtaining congressional approval. For instance, Trump authorized the murder of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad in 2020 under the 2003 AUMF.
During Trump’s first term, there were concerns that he could use the 2001 AUMF to strike Iran under the unfounded claim that Tehran supports al-Qaeda.
The War Powers Act was passed when?
Presidents have discovered ways to avoid Congress in war issues despite the articles in the constitution. So in 1973, after decades of US intervention in Vietnam and elsewhere in Asia, lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution to reassert their authority over military action.
The president’s war-making authority is limited by the law, at least in its intended form.
Following President Richard Nixon’s covert bombing of Cambodia, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and sparked widespread protests in the US, it was passed.
What are the Act’s key tenets?
The US president’s authority to start an armed conflict was imposed by the federal law.
Enacted over Nixon’s veto, the resolution requires “in the absence of a declaration of war” that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and limits deployments to 60 or 90 days unless authorisations to extend them are passed.
Congress must be consulted “in every way possible” before US troops are sent abroad, it says.
The War Powers Act: Why Does It Matter Right Now?   ,
Legislators have been considering the five-decade law and pushing for their own version as the possibility of US intervention in Iran grows.
Republican Senator Tim Kaine introduced a bill on Monday that would require that Trump, a Republican, obtain authorization before launching military operations against Iran. That was followed by a similar bill put forward in the House of Representatives on Tuesday by US Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican, and Democrat Ro Khanna of California.
The Vermont senator’s No War Against Iran Act seeks to “prohibit the use of funds for military force against Iran, and for other purposes.”
However, it’s still unlikely that such legislation will pass in the Republican-controlled legislature despite the fact that some polls indicate Trump supporters are opposed to a war with Iran.
Why is new legislation needed if it’s in the constitution?   ,
The executive and legislative branches have fought over those positions throughout US history despite the separation of the executive and legislative branches’ constitutional separation of war powers.
The most prominent of these incidents – and the last time such a case made it to the Supreme Court in fact – took place in 1861 at the start of the US Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln blockaded southern ports months before Congress legally declared war on the Confederacy. The executive “may repel sudden attacks,” the court eventually decided that the president’s actions were constitutional.
Official congressional declarations of war have been a rarity throughout history. There have been just 11.
Instead, Congress has typically authorized a wide range of military resolutions.
Does the War Powers Act have any substance?
Almost since its passage, the 1973 law has been viewed by some critics as deeply ineffective – more of a political tool for lawmakers to voice dissent than as a real check on power. (A subcommittee led by then-Senator Joe Biden in the 1980s determined that the law had failed to fulfill its purpose.)
A presidential veto of a congressional resolution that calls for the end of military activities that are not authorized by Congress can only be overturned by a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate.
Others have argued the law served an important role in asserting Congress’s rights and creating a framework for speedy, presidential reporting to Congress. A semblance of transparency can be found in the more than 100 reports that have been sent to Congress since 1973.
What are presidents’ opinions of the act?
While Nixon was the most vociferous in his opposition to the War Powers Act, he’s hardly the only president to appear critical. Contemporary presidents frequently veer away from the law and make up their own legal arguments.
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the executive branch has steadily expanded its role in waging war.
The 2001 AUMF and the 2002 Iraq AUMF have been used to justify attacks on “terrorist groups” in at least 19 countries, according to the Friends Committee on National Legislation.
In a briefing, Heather Brandon-Smith, the nonprofit’s legislative director of foreign policy, wrote that the executive branch has expanded this authorization to include organizations that were unrelated to the attacks, including those like ISIS [ISIL], which were unexistent at the time.
And while successive administrations have shown little interest in doing so, despite organizations like the International Crisis Group’s demand for a rehaul or repeal of the AUMF. In recent years, congressional efforts to repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs have only begun chipping away at the acts.
Although the Senate voted in 2023 to end the AUMF of 2001, the decision was largely seen as symbolic. In 2021, the House voted similarly to revoke the AUMF from 2002. But both laws still remain in effect.
Can Trump’s war with Iran be prevented by the War Powers Act?
That is still to be seen, but it doesn’t seem likely.
During Trump’s first term in office, Congress sought to limit presidential war authority for the first time since the Vietnam War.
Trump quickly vetoed a bill that would end US support for the Saudi-United Arab Emirates war in Yemen in 2019.
After Trump’s drone strike that killed Soleimani, a similar situation emerged a year later.
In response, both houses of Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president’s ability to wage war against Iran.
Trump overrode that bill, and once more, the two-thirds majority needed to override it was lost to Republicans.
Source: Aljazeera
Leave a Reply