Notconstitutional Congressinvokesnew War Powers Resolutiontoreject Trumpsstrikeson Iran

Published in Automotive and Transportation on Thursday, July 17th 2025 at 10:00 GMT by Fox News
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Bipartisan lawmakers condemn Trump''s decision to strike Iran''s nuclear facilities as unconstitutional, with calls to return to Congress for a War Powers Resolution vote

In a significant political development, the U.S. Congress has taken a bold step to challenge President Donald Trump's military actions against Iran by invoking a new War Powers Resolution. This resolution aims to curb the president's authority to engage in military strikes without explicit congressional approval, marking a rare bipartisan effort to reassert legislative oversight over executive war-making powers. The move comes in the wake of heightened tensions between the United States and Iran, particularly following a U.S. drone strike that killed a high-ranking Iranian military official, Qassem Soleimani, in early January 2020. This strike, ordered by President Trump, escalated fears of a broader conflict in the Middle East and prompted sharp criticism from lawmakers who argued that such actions risked plunging the nation into an unauthorized war.

The War Powers Resolution, originally enacted in 1973 over President Richard Nixon's veto, was designed to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. forces to armed conflict without the consent of Congress. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops into hostilities and mandates that military actions cease within 60 days unless Congress authorizes the use of force or declares war. However, successive administrations from both parties have often sidestepped or outright ignored these constraints, citing the need for swift executive action in matters of national security. Critics of presidential overreach argue that this has led to an erosion of Congress's constitutional authority over war and peace, a concern that has resurfaced with renewed urgency in the context of Trump's Iran policy.

The recent push for a new War Powers Resolution specifically targeting Trump's actions against Iran reflects a growing unease among lawmakers about the potential for unchecked military escalation. The resolution, spearheaded by Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, asserts that any further military action against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress. It underscores the belief that the strike on Soleimani, while framed by the Trump administration as a necessary measure to prevent imminent attacks on American personnel, lacked sufficient justification or transparency. Lawmakers have expressed frustration over the administration's failure to provide detailed evidence of an imminent threat, as well as its reluctance to consult Congress before undertaking such a consequential operation.

In the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been a vocal advocate for reining in the president's war-making powers. She has argued that the strike on Soleimani endangered U.S. troops, diplomats, and civilians by provoking retaliation from Iran and its proxies. Pelosi and other Democrats have accused Trump of acting recklessly and without a coherent strategy, pointing to Iran's subsequent missile attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq as evidence of the destabilizing consequences of the strike. While no American casualties were reported in those retaliatory attacks, the incidents heightened fears of a tit-for-tat cycle of violence that could spiral into a full-scale war. Democrats contend that Congress must act to prevent such an outcome by reasserting its constitutional role in authorizing military engagements.

Senate Democrats, led by figures such as Tim Kaine of Virginia, have echoed these concerns and introduced a companion resolution in the upper chamber. Kaine's resolution specifically calls for the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran unless Congress grants explicit approval. The senator has emphasized that the American people do not want another prolonged conflict in the Middle East, citing the costly and protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as cautionary tales. Kaine and his allies argue that the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), which were passed in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and the lead-up to the Iraq War, respectively, have been misused by successive administrations to justify a wide range of military actions far beyond their original intent. They assert that these outdated authorizations do not apply to the current situation with Iran and that new congressional approval is necessary for any sustained military campaign.

While the push for the War Powers Resolution has been largely driven by Democrats, it has also garnered support from a small but significant number of Republicans who share concerns about executive overreach. In the Senate, lawmakers such as Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah have criticized the Trump administration for failing to adequately brief Congress on the intelligence and rationale behind the Soleimani strike. Paul, a longtime advocate for non-interventionist foreign policy, has warned against the dangers of an imperial presidency that operates without checks and balances. Lee, meanwhile, has expressed frustration over what he described as dismissive and inadequate briefings from administration officials, arguing that Congress must reclaim its constitutional authority over matters of war. Their support lends a bipartisan dimension to the effort, though it remains uncertain whether enough Republicans will ultimately vote in favor of the resolution to ensure its passage in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Opponents of the resolution, including many within the Trump administration and among congressional Republicans, argue that it undermines the president's ability to respond swiftly to threats against American interests. They contend that the strike on Soleimani was a justified and necessary action to neutralize a dangerous adversary who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. service members over the years through his orchestration of attacks by Iranian-backed militias. Administration officials have defended the operation as a critical step to deter further aggression from Iran, asserting that the president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to act as commander-in-chief in defense of the nation. Republican lawmakers aligned with Trump have echoed this sentiment, warning that tying the president's hands through legislative measures could embolden adversaries and weaken U.S. national security.

The debate over the War Powers Resolution also raises broader questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in matters of foreign policy and military engagement. For decades, Congress has ceded much of its authority over war-making to the president, often deferring to executive claims of urgency or national security. This trend has been exacerbated by the complexities of modern warfare, including the rise of non-state actors, cyber threats, and drone technology, which have blurred the lines of traditional conflict and made it more difficult to define the scope of congressional oversight. Critics of the current system argue that this imbalance has allowed presidents to wage wars without accountability, often at great cost to American lives and resources, while proponents of executive authority maintain that the president must retain flexibility to address rapidly evolving threats in an unpredictable world.

As the War Powers Resolution moves through Congress, its fate remains uncertain. In the House, where Democrats hold a majority, passage is likely, though the measure would still face significant hurdles in the Senate, where a supermajority is required to override a potential presidential veto. Even if the resolution were to pass both chambers, legal experts note that its enforceability is questionable, as past War Powers resolutions have often been ignored by presidents who view them as unconstitutional encroachments on their authority. The Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to intervene in disputes between the branches over war powers, leaving the issue largely unresolved.

Beyond the immediate context of U.S.-Iran relations, the push for this resolution reflects a broader reckoning with the role of Congress in shaping American foreign policy. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are grappling with the legacy of post-9/11 military engagements and the need to update the legal frameworks governing the use of force. For many, the current crisis with Iran serves as a stark reminder of the stakes involved in ceding unchecked power to the executive branch. Whether this moment will lead to lasting change in the balance of war-making authority remains to be seen, but it has undeniably reignited a critical debate about the constitutional principles that underpin American democracy.

In conclusion, the invocation of a new War Powers Resolution to reject President Trump's strikes on Iran represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle between Congress and the executive branch over control of military policy. It encapsulates deep-seated concerns about the risks of escalation in the Middle East, the erosion of congressional authority, and the broader implications for U.S. national security. As tensions with Iran persist and the political battle over war powers unfolds, the outcome of this resolution could have far-reaching consequences for how the United States navigates future conflicts and defines the limits of presidential power.

Read the Full Fox News Article at:
[ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/unconstitutional-congress-evokes-new-war-powers-resolution-reject-trumps-strikes-iran ]

DIY Woodworking

Announcing The World''s Largest Collection of 16,000 Woodworking Plans

N※N

DIY Woodworking

DIY Woodworking

DIY Woodworking

DIY Woodworking

Notconstitutional Congressinvokesnew War Powers Resolutiontoreject Trumpsstrikeson Iran

DIY Woodworking