www.foxnews.com
The Founding Fathers were clear about lots of things, but in the era of modern warfare, who calls the shots and has the final say to head into battle was not the Founders' most crystalline moment.Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "declare War." But Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution anoints the President "Commander in Chief."Constitutional scholars argue that Congress must adopt a resolution before sending service personnel into hostilities abroad under the aegis of "war." But what if you just dispatch B-2 bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to fly halfway around the world and slingshot 14 bunker buster bombs into three of Irans nuclear facilities? Or if you greenlight Ohio Class subs to fire 30 Tomahawk missiles into Iran as well?TRUMP RECEIVES MIXED SUPPORT FROM CONGRESS FOR IRAN STRIKES AS WAR POWERS DEBATE RAGESAre you "at war?" Does the president have the authority to do that? What about Congress?Well, if you say the president or Congress both can be right.Or wrong."I'm someone who believes in the Constitution and the War Powers Act," said Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., on Fox. "(President) Donald Trump did not declare war. He has the right as commander-in-chief to execute a very surgical process."SENATE GOP AIMS TO APPROVE MAJOR LEGISLATION NEXT WEEK AS TRUMP TOUTS PARTY UNITYMace noted "there were no troops on the ground."But then the South Carolina Republican added this:"The 2001 AUMF is still in place. If we didn't like it, then Congress should get rid of it," said Mace.OK. Hold on.We know what "troops on the ground" is. We think (think) we understand what "declaring war" is (or do we?).But pray tell, what in the world is an "AUMF?"Thats congressional speak for an "Authorization for Use of Military Force."Its kind of like Congress "declaring war." Both the House and Senate must vote to "declare war."Transom windows, pie safes and coal chutes in homes all started to become obsolete in the 1940s.So did "declaring war," apparently.Congress hasnt "declared war" since 1942.And that was against Romania.In fact, the U.S. has only "declared war" 11 times in history.And Congress doesnt just "declare war." Both the House and Senate must vote. And so what the modern Congress does now is approve an "authorization" to send the military into harms way overseas. That could be by sea. Troops on the ground. In the air. You name it.Congress authorized the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. That was the gateway to years of fighting in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. More recently, Congress blessed an authorization to invade Afghanistan and wage the "war on terror" in 2001 after 9/11. Lawmakers followed that up in the fall of 2002 for authorization to invade Iraq on suspicion that Saddam Husseins regime had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. and its allies found nothing after the 2003 invasion.To Maces point, the 2001 AUMF is so broad that four American presidents have deployed it for various military action around the world. Maces argument would be that Iran or its proxies could launch terrorism attacks or even a nuclear weapon somewhere. So, the 2001 AUMF is justification for American involvement.That said, most foreign policy and military experts argue that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are calcified, legislative relics.This is why its a political kaleidoscope about how various lawmakers felt about launching attacks on Iran and if Congress must get involved.Democrats who usually oppose President Trump supported airstrikes."I've been saying, Hell yes for I think it's almost six weeks," said Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa.Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., is one of the most pro-Israel lawmakers from either party."This window is open now," said Wasserman Schultz before the attack. "We can't take our boot off their neck."But possible strikes worried lawmakers even before the U.S. launched them. Theres concern the conflagration could devolve into a broader conflict."The idea that one strike is going to be adequate, that it's going to be one and done, I think is a misconception," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.Before the conflict, bipartisan House members just returned from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain."They are worried that this will escalate," said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb. "And it wouldn't take a whole lot for it to spiral out of control."This is why Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., wanted the House to vote on their resolution before the U.S. attacked Iran."I wouldn't call my side of the MAGA base isolationists. We are exhausted. We are tired from all of these wars. And were non-interventionists," said Massie on CBS."You're wasting billions of our dollars because we're sending more troops to the Middle East. What did you accomplish? And why are you oblivious to the American people who are sick of these wars?" said Khanna, also on CBS.Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., didnt mention Trump by name, but in a screed posted on X, she excoriated the decision to strike Iran."Only 6 months in and we are back into foreign wars, regime change, and world war 3. It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities that MAGA hates and who were NEVER TRUMPERS!" wrote Greene.Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, also questioned the authority of the president to fire on Iran."While President Trumps decision may prove just, its hard to conceive a rationale thats Constitutional," wrote Davidson on social media.But when it came to Republicans criticizing those who went against Trump, most GOPers took on Massie."I'm not sure what's going on with Thomas. He votes no against everything," said Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., on Fox Business. "I'm not sure why he's even here anymore.""He should be a Democrat because he's more aligned with them than with the Republican Party," said White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt on Fox about Massie.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPShooing away Republicans toward the Democratic Party could be a questionable strategy considering the narrow GOP House majority. Its currently 220 to 212 with three vacancies. All three vacancies are in districts heavily favored by the Democrats.Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., plans to compel the Senate to vote this week on a resolution to determine if the U.S. should tussle militarily with Iran."We will have all members of the Senate declare whether or not the U.S. should be at war with Iran. It's unconstitutional for a president to initiate a war like this without Congress," said Kaine on Fox. "Every member of Congress needs to vote on this."Whether the U.S. is involved in "war" with Iran is an issue of debate. And heres the deepest secret: Lawmakers sometimes preach about exercising their war powers authorities under Article I of the Constitution. But because votes about "war" or "AUMFs" are complicated, some members would rather chatter about it but cede their power to the president. The reason? These are very, very tough votes, and its hard to decide the right thing to do.The Founders were skeptical of a powerful executive. They wanted to make sure a "monarch," or, in our case, a president, couldnt unilaterally dial up hostilities without a check from Congress. But over time, Congress relinquished many of those war powers. And thats why the executive seems to call the shots under these circumstances.Is the U.S. at war? Like many things, it may be in the eye of the beholder.And whether this responsibility ultimately lies with Congress or the president is in the eye of the beholder, too.
