CNN
–
President Donald Trump’s order to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities presents a new test of the constitution and the extent to which the presidential authority will wage war despite the lack of Congressional approval.
The administration relies on the president’s powers under Article 2 of the Constitution, two administration officials told CNN. The White House Lawyer’s Office and the Department of Justice were both involved in legal analysis of the strike. The administration relied in part on the war power memos written by the DOJ’s legal advisor’s office under both parties’ previous administrations.
“The president is clearly doing well within his Article II powers,” a former senior US official told CNN. “The end of the story.”
But that is not a view held by many legal experts or endorsed by Democrats and Republican lawmakers. They point to a clear statement that only Congress can declare war alone, a lack of laws similar to the approval of the Iraq War era regarding the use of military force, and a lack of a well-known threat to the United States.
In response to the tragic war in Vietnam, Congress passed a forces resolution, a law that overturned President Richard Nixon’s veto and silenced the president over the use of military force.
“I think this should be considered a war, and it is likely not just a strict and limited strike, so it requires Congressional approval.
“The Forces Act requires prior consultation with Congress, “whenever possible,” before entering into hostilities with the US military,” Somin added. “I think it was obviously possible here, and I don’t think it was obviously done.”
The Supreme Court has been lenient in approving Trump’s vast use of power, most notably last year’s immunity ruling. That view also contributes to the analysis, said a senior White House official.
“This is not technical rulemaking,” said Chris Anders, senior adviser to the American Civil Liberties Union. “It’s literally one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution.”
In a federalist paper, James Madison has since argued the exception that the president can use his power to “fight off a sudden attack on the United States.”
“If it applies to Iran,” Anders said, which would not meet that test. “The use of the bombing was carried out against facilities that have probably stood there for decades, and was not part of a sudden attack on the US.”
A senior Justice Department official argued that if the dispute continues for a long period of time, the administration may have to go to Congress for approval, but that “three nuclear bombings” will not rise to levels that require Congress’ approval. Officials also pointed out that the Trump administration has the support of senior House and Senate leaders.
Democrats and Republican presidents have been avoiding Congress for decades due to strikes and military action.
Over the past 40 years, Article II powers have been used by President George HW Bush to use force against Panama, and dictators Manuel Noriega and Barack Obama to use airstrikes in Libya and Trump’s actions in his first term against Syria and Iran.
“The Commander-in-Chief can take action to protect America’s interests around the world,” former Trump national security adviser John Bolton told CNN.
“We’ve seen Iranian sponsored terrorism in Lebanon in 1983. We’ve seen them helping Iraqi weapon militias who killed Americans in an RPG made in Iran,” Bolton said. “For years, they have threatened our troops in the area.”
The president relies on a collection of legal experts from various institutions to confirm his actions. White House lawyers used the group. This included national defense and state national divisions, the CIA and the Department of Justice’s legal advisors and top legal experts in the National Security Agency, providing advice to the President before making any major national security decisions.
The Trump White House was less dependent on these experts than its previous administration, current and former U.S. officials say. His Department of Justice has previously widely embraced the idea of a wider presidential force.
“The United States is not a global police officer, but its power is increasing, which broadens the range of regional interests and increases the threat to national interests raised by foreign obstacles,” the Legal Advisors wrote in 2018 regarding air attacks on Syria.
“He basically abused many previous administrations, especially Obama, during the 2011 Libyan War,” Somin said. “But the bottom line is that this is kind of abuse, unprecedented abuse, and that’s not true.”
It may be impossible to force anything against Trump through the legal system, as the courts are skeptical of who has the right to sue him and whether such arguments should remain for the political sector to deal with them.
A full house or Senate could, in theory, challenge Trump in court, as the democratically led home of the time did during his first term on border walls. However, the highest federal court of appeals upheld the suit on the basis of a dispute over spending, but later left as a dispute.
“This is a fundamental issue for the constitutional authorities. If they file a lawsuit, the courts won’t intervene,” Bolton said. “This is a battle between the two branches.”
However, bipartisan concerns do not move the needle yourself without help from leadership.
“The President fully respects Congress’ powers and is necessary tonight, and the limited, targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military action under the president of both parties,” Johnson said in a social media post.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massey was surprised.
“There was no immediate threat to the US, it was something that approved of it, and I think it’s unique to hear it from the Speaker of the House,” the Kentucky Senator said of CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “Look, Congress was on vacation last week when this was all going on. We weren’t explained. They should have called us.”
Massy and Democrat Rocanna are trying to reaffirm Congress’ authority over military action in a co-hosted war power resolution. Democrat Sen. Tim Kane said on Fox News Sunday that Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer has called for a vote “as soon as possible” in the resolution, so “we must declare whether all members of the Senate should go to war with Iran.”
Massy noted that US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s were debated “at least” in Congress at the time, at the request of then-President George W. Bush.
“It was supposed to be a declaration of war, but at least they gave permission to use military force,” Massey said. “We don’t have it. This has been turned upside down.”
Some lawmakers and legal experts are considering the second Iraq war as a precedent for parliamentary actions. We also see warnings to consider the information.
“We’re in Yellowcake Uranland,” the former national security authorities said, referring to the intelligence that has failed to have weapons of mass destruction. “Parliament should ask questions about what intelligence they have and what they have done before taking this escalation action.”
Democrats and Republican administrations repeatedly expanded their 2002 approval of the use of military force that approved the Iraq War as a legal authority for military action outside of Iraq. The previous AUMF, which approved measures against al-Qaeda and related groups, has been used beyond those devised in the post-9/11 era.
“The problem is, historically, the only meaningful check on presidential abuse is the pushback from Congress,” said Stephen Vladeck, a legal analyst, professor and professor at CNN. “But that was when Congress took constitutional and institutional responsibility seriously.”
Anders of the ACLU say there is still time for Congress to act on a bipartisan basis, suggesting a hearing to air the Trump administration’s military and legal justifications. Congress could also consider limiting funds for such actions.
It is also an opportunity for true national debate.
“There is one advantage to coming to the administrative department when you go to Congress and ask for permission to have a clear investigation into what the US is in.
“It’s part of the genius in how the constitution is established.”
Zachary Wolf of CNN contributed to this report