JONATHAN TURLEY: Trump’s authority on Iran strikes backed by history and law

with Launching attacks on IranSome have already declared the strikes unconstitutional. This includes the immediate condemnation of Representative Thomas Massie. However, precedent favors the President in this action, even though the attack entails notification and consultation obligations with Congress.

I am very sympathetic to those who criticize the failure to seek a declaration of war from Congress before carrying out such operations. In fact, I have represented members of Congress in opposition to such wars. We lost. Courts have allowed presidents to order such attacks unilaterally.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states, “The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.” However, the Constitution also expressly provides that Congress has the authority to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

Our last declared war was World War II. Since that time, Congress and the courts have allowed rulings to replace the declaration requirement. It also allowed unilateral attacks on other countries.

President Trump noted This work is a “war” He said it would not be a limited process.

The attack will trigger calls to comply with War Powers ResolutionApproved by Congress in 1973.

The resolution “in the absence of a declaration of war” requires the president to report to Congress within 48 hours after the introduction of US military forces into hostilities. The WPR states that operations must end within 60 days without congressional approval.

Notably, there was a recent secret briefing by the “Gang of Eight” that may have included a precursor to this operation. Minister of State Marco Rubio He confirmed on Saturday that he had served notice on those senators.

Under WPR:

“The President must in every possible case consult with Congress before introducing the armed forces of the United States into hostilities or in situations where circumstances clearly indicate imminent involvement in hostilities, and after each such introduction he must consult regularly with Congress until the armed forces of the United States cease to participate in hostilities or are removed from such situations.”

The World War Charter limits this authority to “hostilities, or to cases where circumstances clearly indicate imminent involvement in hostilities,” and it may not be exercised “except by (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific lawful authorization, or (3) a national emergency arising from an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

President Trump cited the document Iran attacks And its agents are against the American forces and their allies. It is also a state sponsor of terrorism and has continued its pursuit of nuclear weapons in defiance of the demands of the international community. Recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that Iran had once again prevented it from entering these sites.

Historically, there has been deference to presidents who exercise such judgment under this vague standard. This was certainly the case with the attacks in Bosnia and Libya under Democratic presidents.

Even with the respectful language, presidents have long bristled at WPR’s restrictions. Nixon’s veto of the legislation was overridden. Previous Democratic and Republican presidents, including Obama, have asserted their inherent authority under Article II to carry out such operations.

There’s always a fair amount of hypocrisy in these moments. There were no widespread protests when Obama attacked Libya, especially from Democrats. When members appeared to challenge the undeclared war in Libya, Obama (like Trump) rejected any need to seek congressional approval in attacking a foreign nation’s capital and military sites to force regime change. Figures such as the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Hillary Clinton They were honored for their tough work in Libya.

Critics can also rely on mandates for Use of military force (AUMFs) to emphasize the restrictions imposed on the President when authorizing limited and specific military actions. Such decisions date back to the Adams administration in the quasi-war with France.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Act of 2001 allowed the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons who he determines planned, authorized, committed, or assisted in the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” It also allowed presidents to take military action to prevent future acts of terrorism against the United States.

the 2002 omf The President authorizes the use of force that is “necessary and appropriate” to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” Previous presidents have interpreted these authorizations for their use as extending to new threats and beyond countries like Iraq.

In a 2018 report, the Trump administration declared that the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act “contains no geographic restrictions on where authorized force may be used.”

Click here for more Fox News opinions

Obama, Biden and Trump have cited the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act as supporting previous attacks in Syria. Biden’s attacks included targets in Iraq and Yemen. Trump also cited the 2002 AUMF in eliminating Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force.

President Biden’s reliance on the 2002 AUMF (and the 2001 AUMF) to launch “necessary and proportionate” attacks was ironic because he previously supported repealing the 2002 AUMF.

Click here to download the FOX NEWS app

Management is likely to do so Consult with Congress in this light from these attacks. Congress could seek to ban or limit the operations in the coming days. Given the volatile events, many members will likely wait to see the initial results and, frankly, opinion polls on the attacks. However, these processes may take days or even weeks. The longer the process drags on, the calls for congressional action are likely to grow.

However, as a preliminary matter, Trump is using the authority invoked by previous presidents, including Democratic presidents, to carry out major attacks on other countries. History and past precedent are on his side in carrying out these initial attacks.

Click here to read more from Jonathan Turley

Related article