President Trump's attack on Iran has hurled the administration into muddy legal waters, from the commander-in-chief's authority to provoke a war to adherence to international law.
The strikes on Iran began early Saturday after Trump for weeks threatened Tehran with attacks, building up U.S. military might across the Middle East amid diplomatic negotiations on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. Those negotiations have now fallen apart.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed during the joint strikes from the U.S. and Israel, sparking intense debate about what the future of Iran's leadership looks like as dozens of other government officials were also killed.
It's also led to a host of domestic legal questions swirling around Trump's attack that center on a centuries-old separation of powers conflict.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to "declare" war, but presidents are empowered as commander-in-chief.
That split of war powers between the branches sets up an inherent conflict, as lawmakers fear the White House is bypassing them while Trump insists his efforts fall under his authority as head of the military.
Here's how Congress sees it:
"Under Congress's interpretation of the Constitution, the President may introduce troops into hostile circumstances if Congress has (1) declared war, (2) specifically authorized the President to use force, or (3) there is a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its territories.
The executive branch claims much broader authority and asserts that the Constitution empowers the President to initiate and engage in many types of military action without congressional authorization."
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a prominent critic of expansive presidential war authority, is pushing to force a vote on a war powers resolution alongside Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.). A similar push is underway in the House.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called Trump's strikes unconstitutional, saying he "didn't even bother" to seek congressional approval.
"If President Trump wants to send American armed forces into conflict, he must make his case to the American people and their representatives in Congress," Christopher Anders, director of the ACLU's Democracy and Technology Division, said in a statement. "The commander in chief must follow the chain of command and that begins with we the people."
Does this all sound familiar?
It should — we saw the same concerns when Trump in June bombed three Iranian nuclear sites and following the operation to oust ex-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro so he could face criminal charges in the U.S.
Though courts have emerged as the primary obstacle for Trump to accomplish many aspects of his sweeping second-term agenda, it's unlikely they'll have an avenue to wade into a fight over Trump's latest moves in the Middle East.
Presidents from both parties in have carried out military strikes across the globe without congressional approval:
Trump during his first term ordered strikes in Syria.
President Obama bombed Libya alongside the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
President Clinton intervened in the Kosovo conflict by authorizing strikes against Serbian forces.
President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama.
President Reagan deployed U.S. forces to Lebanon (though, Congress later signed off).
President Truman sent troops to Korea.
And that's just in recent years. Even former President Polk — the 11th president — sent the military to occupy the newly annexed state of Texas without Congress's initial backing, a move that was seen as a declaration of war with Mexico.
Republican leaders have stood firmly behind Trump as Democrats raise alarm.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), noting he's a constitutional lawyer, expressed confidence following a briefing from administration officials Monday, though he acknowledged to reporters that the system includes "timetables" for Congress' role under the Wars Powers Resolution of 1973.
"But I think the idea that we would move a War Powers Act vote right now — I mean, it will be forced to the floor — but the idea that we would take the ability of our commander-in-chief, the president, take his authority away right now to finish this job is a frightening prospect to me. It's dangerous," Johnson said.
"And I am certainly hopeful and I believe we do have the votes to put it down."
Then, there are questions of international law.
The United Nations Charter, which Truman ratified in 1945, bars the "use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres pointed to the provision in a statement Saturday that said the joint attacks by the U.S. and Israel, and retaliation by Iran, "undermine international peace & security."
All treaties properly ratified become part of the "Law of the Land," per the Constitution, even though U.S. courts can't enforce treaties like the U.N. Charter.
Plus, while U.N. member nations are entitled to act in self-defense, they abide by a rule of international law that nations must show a threat was "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation," known as the Caroline doctrine.
Oona Hathaway, an international law professor at Yale University and former special counsel at the Department of Defense, wrote on X that the military effort amounts to an "attack on the postwar legal order."
"Yet again, Trump has taken an action that threatens to end an era of historic peace and return us to a world in which might makes right," she said. "The cost will be paid in human lives."
No comments:
Post a Comment