War Powers Debate: Who has the right to conduct a military strike against Iran?

The Founding Father was very clear about many things, but in the modern war era, he said that shooting, the ultimate willingness to enter the battle was not the most crystallization of the founder.

Article 1, Article 8 of the Constitutional Grants Congress The power to declare war. But Article 2 of the Constitution anoints the President’s “Commander-in-Chief”.

Constitutional scholars believe that Congress must take resolutions before integrating service personnel into hostilities in the “war”. But what if you just dispatched a B-2 bomber from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to fly half of the world, and the slingshot 14 Bunker Buster bombs into three nuclear facilities in Iran? Or, if you still fire 30 Tomahawk missiles at the Ohio level, it also launches toward Iran?

Trump receives different Congressional support for Iran’s strike as war power debates

Are you in war? Does the president have the right to do this? Where is Congress?

Well, if you say the president or Congress – both can be right.

Or wrong.

“I am a person who believes in the Constitution and the War Powers Act.” Rep. Nancy Mace, Rs.C., on Fox. “(President) Donald Trump has not declared war. He has the right to perform extraordinary surgical procedures as commander-in-chief.”

Senate Republicans aim to approve major legislation next week as Trump touts party unity

Rep. Nancy Mace, Rs.C., held a meeting of the House Republican Conference at the U.S. Capitol on June 6, 2023. (Getty Image)

“There are no troops on the ground,” Metz pointed out.

But then South Carolina Republicans added this:

“The 2001 AUMF still exists. If we don’t like it, Congress should get rid of it,” said Mays.

OK hold on.

We know what “ground forces” are. We think (think) we understand what is “declaration of war” is (or us?).

But please pray, what is “AUMF” in the world?

This is the “authorization of the use of military power” of the Congress representative.

It’s a bit like Congress “declaration of war”. House and Senate A vote must be made to declare war.

At sunset on January 30, 2025, the U.S. Capitol Building. (Fox News figures)

In the 1940s, beamed windows, pie safes and coal cones in the house all began to be outdated.

Obviously, the same is true for “declaration of war”.

Since 1942, Congress has not declared war.

That’s against Romania.

In fact, the United States has only 11 “declaration of war” in history.

Congress is not just “declaring war.” Both house The Senate must vote. So what the modern Congress is doing now will approve the “authorization” of harm that puts the military overseas. That could be at sea. The troops are on the ground. up in the air. You name it.

Congress authorized the Tonkin Bay resolution in 1964. This is the gateway for years of fighting in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. Recently, Congress blessed a mandate to invade Afghanistan and launched a “war on terror” in 2001 after 9/11. Members authorized the invasion of Iraq in the fall of 2002 – suspected that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction. After the invasion in 2003, the United States and its allies found nothing.

As far as Metz is concerned, the 2001 AUMF was so extensive that four U.S. presidents deployed it to various military operations around the world. Metz’s argument is that Iran or its agents can launch terrorist attacks, or even launch nuclear weapons somewhere. Therefore, the 2001 AUMF was a reason for the participation of the United States.

That is, most foreign policy and military experts believe that the 2001 and 2002 AUMF is a legislative artifact of calcification.

That’s why it’s a political kaleidoscope, telling the reasons why various legislators feel that launch an attack on Iran and whether Congress must participate.

Democrats who usually oppose President Trump Supported air strikes.

In a handout provided by the White House, U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio (R) sat in the situation room as they monitored the mission of withdrawing three Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at the White House in Washington on June 21, 2025. (Daniel Torok/White House via Getty Image)

“I kept saying, ‘hell is’ because I think it’s almost six weeks,” said D-PA Senator John Fetterman.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. He is one of the most pro-Israel lawmakers on either side.

“This window is now open,” said Wasserman Schultz before the attack. “We can’t take the boots off our necks.”

But even before the U.S. rolled out them, a possible strike has worried lawmakers. There are concerns that the fire could turn into a wider conflict.

“A strike will be enough idea to be completed, and I think it’s a misunderstanding,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

Before the conflict, members of the bipartisan House had just returned from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

“They are worried that this will escalate,” said R-Neb Rep. Don Bacon. “It won’t take a lot of time to get out of control.”

That’s why R-Ky. Rep. Thomas Massie and D-Calif’s Ro Khanna want the House to vote on its resolution before the U.S. attacks on Iran.

R-Ky. Rep. Thomas Massie and D-Calif. Ro Khanna wants the House to vote on its resolution before the United States attacks Iran with Trump’s order. (Getty Image)

“I wouldn’t call me a Maga basic segregationist. We’re exhausted. We’re tired from all these wars. We’re non-interventionists.”

“You are wasting billions because we’re sending more troops to the Middle East. What have you done? Khanna said, also on CBS.

R-Ga. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene did not mention Trump, but in the clip posted on X, she elaborated on the decision to strike Iran.

“In just six months, we’re back to foreign wars, regime change and World War III. It feels like a complete bait to please the new Conservatives, the warm people, the complex contracts of the military industry, and the Neocon TV characters who Maga hates Maga hates and never exaggerates!” Green wrote.

Rep. Warren Davidson of R-Ohio also questioned the president’s power to fire Iran.

“While President Trump’s decision may prove, it’s hard to conceive a reason for the Constitution,” Davidson wrote on social media.

But when it comes to Republicans criticizing those who oppose Trump, most Republicans accept Massi.

Rep. Greg Murphy said: “I’m not sure what happened to Thomas.” I’m not sure why he’s still here. ”

“He should be a Democrat because he is more consistent with the Republican Party,” a White House spokeswoman said. Karoline Leavitt On Fox About Masa.

Click here to get the Fox News app

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that President Donald Trump will be involved in Israel’s conflict with Iran in the next two weeks to make a decision. (Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Drive away Republicans Taking into account the narrow Republican House majority, moving toward the Democratic Party could be a questionable strategy. Currently it is 220 to 212, and there are three vacancies. All three vacancies are in areas where Democrats are valued.

Senator Tim Kaine, D-VA. Plans force the Senate’s resolution to vote this week to determine whether the United States should compete with Iran’s military.

“We will have all members of the Senate declaring whether the United States should be at war with Iran. It is unconstitutional for the president to launch such a war without Congress,” Kaine said on Fox. “Every member of Congress needs to vote on it.”

Whether the United States is involved in the “war” with Iran is a debate issue. This is the deepest secret: parliamentarians sometimes preach the authority to exercise war power under article 1 of the Constitution. But because the vote on “war” or “AUMFS” is complicated, some members would rather chat about it, but attribute their power to the president. reason? These are very, very difficult votes and it’s hard to decide what to do right.

The founder expressed doubts about a strong executive. They wanted to secure a “monarch”, or in our case, there was no way to call hostilities unilaterally without a cheque from Congress. But as time passed, Congress gave up many war powers. That’s why executives seem to hit the camera in this case.

Is the United States in war? Like many things, it may be in the eyes of a lover.

Whether this responsibility ultimately lies with Congress or the president is also in the eyes of lovers.