Join Fox News to access this content
Plus, use your account to get special access to selected articles and other premium content – free.
By entering your email to continue, you agree to Fox News Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. This includes notifications of financial incentives.
Please enter a valid email address.
Are there any problems? click here.
Newou can listen to Fox News articles!
The Founding Father was clear about many things, but in modern times of war, it was not the most crystallized moments of the founder that he had the final say to call shots and headed for battle.
Article 1, Article 8 of the Constitution gives parliament the power to “declare war.” However, Article 2 of the Constitution anoints the President of the “Commander-in-Chief.”
Constitutional scholars argue that Parliament must adopt a resolution before sending service personnel to hostilities overseas under the support of “war.” But what if a B-2 bomber was sent from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to fly halfway through the world, and a 14-bucker buster bomb entered three of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Or will it be greenlit to Ohio class submarines and launch 30 Tomahawk missiles at Iran?
Trump has received mixed support from Congress for Iran’s strike as the war power debate rages
A debate over those who declare the rage of war in parliament. (Getty Images)
Are you “at war”? Does the President have the authority to do that? How about the council?
Well, if you say President or Congress, both may be right.
Or it’s wrong.
“I’m a person who believes in the Constitution and the Forces Act,” said Fox Rep. Nancy Mace. “(President) Donald Trump did not declare war. He has the rights to be a commander to carry out a very surgical process.”
The Senate GOP aims to approve next week’s major law to promote party unity
Rep. Nancy Mace, Rs.C. will leave the House Republican Congress meeting at the US Capitol on June 6, 2023 (Getty Images)
“There were no troops on the ground,” Mace said.
But then South Carolina Republicans added this:
“The 2001 AUMF is still in place properly. If we don’t like it, Congress should get rid of it,” Mace said.
got it. last.
I know what the “army of the ground” is. We believe we understand what “declaring war” means (or what about us?).
But pray, what is the “aumf” of the world?
It is Congress, talking about “permission to use military force.”
It’s like “declaring war” like Congress. Both the House and Senate must vote to “declare war.”
Fox News Digital at sunset on January 30th, 2025
Transom Window, Pie Safe and Cole Shoot began to be abolished in the 1940s.
It was clearly the same as “declaring war.”
Congress has not “declared war” since 1942.
And it opposed Romania.
In fact, the United States has “declared war” only 11 times in history.
And Congress is not just about “declaring war.” Both the House and Senate must vote. And what modern Congress is doing now is to approve “approval” to harm the military overseas. It could be at sea. Army on the ground. air. You give it a name.
Congress approved the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964. It was the gateway to years of fighting in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. More recently, Congress congratulated him for permission to invade Afghanistan in 2001 after 9/11 and engage in a “war on terrorism.” Lawmakers followed in the fall of 2002 for permission to invade Iraq on suspicion that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction. The United States and its allies discovered nothing after the 2003 invasion.
For Mace’s point, the 2001 AUMF was very wide, with four US presidents deploying it for various military operations around the world. Mace’s claim is that Iran or its proxy could launch a terrorist attack. Therefore, the 2001 AUMF is justification for American involvement.
That said, most foreign policy and military experts argue that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFS is calcifying legislative artifacts.
This is why it is a political kaleidoscope of how various lawmakers felt about launching an attack on Iran and whether Congress must be involved.
Democrats oppose President Trump’s usual support of air strikes.
In this handout provided by the White House, US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio (R) are sitting in the situation room as they monitored the mission that took the White House’s three Iranian nuclear enrichment sites in Washington on June 21, 2025. (White House via Daniel Trock/Getty Images)
“I think it’s almost six weeks so I’ve been saying ‘Hell yes’,” D-PA Senator John Fetterman said.
D-Fla. MP Debbie Wasserman Schultz is one of the most pro-Israel lawmakers from both parties.
“This window is open now,” Wasserman Schultz said before the attack. “You can’t remove the boots from your neck.”
But there are strikes that could make lawmakers worried even before the US launches them. There are concerns that a major fire could be left to wider conflicts.
“I think the idea that one strike is appropriate and that it will be one is a misunderstanding,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
Before the conflict, bipartisan House members returned from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.
“They’re worried that this will escalate,” said R-Neb Rep. Don Bacon. “And it doesn’t need that much to spiral out of control.”
This is before the US attacks Iran. Thomas Massie and D-Calif. That’s why Ro Khanna wanted to vote for their resolution.
Rep. Thomas Massey (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) wanted the house to vote for their resolution before the US attacks Iran with Trump’s orders. (Getty Images)
“I won’t call my side of the Magazine-based isolationist. We’re exhausted. We’re tired of all these wars. And we’re non-interventionists,” said CBS’s Massy.
“We’re sending more troops to the Middle East, so you’re wasting billions of dollars. What have you achieved? And why don’t you notice Americans tired of these wars?” Kanna also said on CBS.
R-Ga. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of the company did not mention Trump by name, but in a screed posted to X, she exploited the decision to attack Iran.
“Just six months later, we returned to foreign wars, regime change, World War I. It felt like a complete bait, switching to please the neocon, warmer, military industrial complex contracts, neocon television character. Written by Green.
R-Ohio Rep. Warren Davidson also questioned the president’s authority to fire Iran.
“While President Trump’s decision may be very proven, it’s hard to imagine constitutional rationale,” Davidson wrote on social media.
But when it comes to Republicans who criticize those who opposed Trump, most Gopers have taken on Massie.
“I don’t know what’s going on in Thomas. He won’t vote against everything,” said Rep. Greg Murphy of Fox Business. “I don’t know why he’s here anymore.”
“He should be a Democrat because he’s more consistent with them than the Republicans,” White House spokeswoman Caroline Leavitt said of Fox’s Massie.
Click here to get the Fox News app
White House spokesman Caroline Leavitt said Thursday that President Donald Trump will decide to engage in Israel’s conflict with Iran within the next two weeks. (Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Driving Republicans away towards Democrats could be a questionable strategy considering the majority of the narrow GOP house. Currently there are three vacant seats between 220 and 212. All three vacancies are located in districts that are highly favored by Democrats.
Senator Tim Kane, D-Va. is expected to force the Senate to vote this week to determine whether the US should fight Iran militarily.
“We have all members of the Senate declare whether the United States should go to war with Iran. It is unconstitutional for the president to launch such a war without Congress,” Kane said at Fox. “All members of Congress must vote for this.”
Whether the US is involved in a “war” with Iran is a matter of debate. And here is the deepest secret. Lawmakers sometimes preach the exercise of their war power authorities under Article 1 of the Constitution. However, voting for “war” or “aumfs” is complicated, so some members would rather chat about it, but give power to the President. reason? These are extremely tough votes and it’s hard to decide what’s right.
The founder was skeptical of the powerful executives. They wanted to confirm the “monarch” or in our case the president could not unilaterally dial hostilities without a check from Congress. But over time, Congress abandoned many of those war powers. And that’s why executives seem to call shots under these circumstances.
Is the United States at war? Like many things, it may be in the eyes of the viewer.
And it is also in the eyes of those who see whether this responsibility will ultimately be on Congress or the president.
Source link
