Can Only a Dem President Attack Another Country?
Segment #526
It is difficult to trust or believe any politician who finds hypocrisy a comforting shade tree. What Trump and the military did in Iran was a massive success that is apparent to most Americans. The Dems will attempt to denigrate this victory further exposing their illegitimacy as national leaders. I say keep talking.
That said is worth understanding the history of the limits of presidential power. Why did we have the War Powers Act and how has it constrained past presidents. A compelling argument can be made that both Republican and Democrat presidents have succeeded and failed in exercising this power. So I don’t criticize the system but many things have to go right for it work as designed. The Dems now so blinded by orange man bad will never understand this concept.
The Constitution
You are absolutely right to push back on that! My previous answer was incomplete in addressing the nuances of the President's powers regarding national defense. While Article I, Section 8, and Article II, Section 2 are the most direct grants of war powers, the President's ability to "defend the country" also stems from several other aspects of the Constitution and long-standing interpretations.
Here's a more comprehensive look at the wording and implied powers:
Commander in Chief Power (Article II, Section 2): As already mentioned, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
While this doesn't explicitly state the President can "attack" another country, the power to command the armed forces is inherently tied to their deployment, which includes defensive actions and, by extension, pre-emptive strikes or retaliatory measures deemed necessary for national security. This has been a source of significant executive power, particularly in modern times.
Take Care Clause (Article II, Section 3): "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."
This clause is often interpreted to mean that the President has a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. In the context of national security, this can be argued to include defending the nation from attack, even without explicit congressional authorization if an immediate threat is perceived.
Oath of Office (Article II, Section 1): "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
This oath places a direct, personal responsibility on the President to protect the nation. While not a direct grant of power to initiate hostilities, it underpins the President's inherent duty to respond to threats.
Implied Powers and Historical Practice:
Beyond the explicit wording, the President's authority to defend the country, including the use of force, has evolved significantly through:
Implied Powers: The necessary and proper clause (Article I, Section 8) applies to Congress, but the functional requirements of being Commander in Chief and the duty to "take care" have led to implied executive powers in foreign policy and national defense.
Emergency Powers: Presidents have historically asserted the right to repel sudden attacks or to take action in emergencies without prior congressional approval, arguing that waiting for a declaration of war would be detrimental to national security.
Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMFs): While not a formal declaration of war, Congress has passed AUMFs (like the one after 9/11) that grant the President broad authority to use military force against specific threats. These have been interpreted by presidents as providing the legal basis for sustained military operations.
International Law and Self-Defense: U.S. foreign policy often operates within the framework of international law, which recognizes the inherent right of self-defense for nations. Presidents have invoked this right to justify military actions abroad.
So, while the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to "declare war," the President's role as Commander in Chief, combined with the "take care" clause and the oath of office, has been interpreted, especially in modern times, to include the ability to use military force to defend the country, even in situations short of a formally declared war. This ongoing tension and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches remain a central feature of U.S. constitutional law and foreign policy.
The War Powers Act
The War Powers Act (formally the War Powers Resolution) requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated. While presidents have submitted many such reports, the Act's effectiveness in limiting presidential war-making power has been a continuous point of contention, with presidents often asserting their constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief.
It's crucial to understand that simply reporting under the War Powers Act doesn't necessarily mean the president is using the act to initiate hostilities, but rather is notifying Congress of actions taken or ongoing. Many military actions involving bombing or killing have been conducted under other authorities, such as prior Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) passed by Congress (e.g., the 2001 AUMF after 9/11 or the 2002 Iraq AUMF) or the President's inherent Article II powers.
Here are some significant instances where presidents have reported to Congress under the War Powers Act, or where military actions involving bombing or killing have been a prominent feature, often sparking debate about the Act's application:
Cambodia (1975): President Ford reported on the airlift and evacuation operations, though the Act was passed in response to secret bombings in Cambodia by President Nixon prior to its enactment.
Lebanon (1982-1983): President Reagan committed forces to Beirut, drawing debate over the application of the War Powers Act.
Persian Gulf War (1991): President George H.W. Bush sought and received congressional authorization before launching the large-scale military operation. While Congress authorized it, the reporting still fell under the spirit of the WPR.
Bosnia and Kosovo (1990s): President Clinton engaged in military interventions, including bombing campaigns, in these regions. The legality under the War Powers Act was debated, particularly concerning the sustained bombing in Kosovo in 1999 without specific congressional authorization.
Afghanistan and Iraq (Post-9/11): Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, Congress passed the 2001 AUMF, giving President George W. Bush broad authority for the "war on terror." This and the 2002 Iraq AUMF have since been cited by subsequent presidents (Obama, Trump, and Biden) to justify a wide range of military actions, including drone strikes and other offensive operations in various countries, often without additional specific War Powers Act notifications beyond initial deployments. Examples include:
Libya (2011): President Obama ordered military intervention, including air strikes, without specific congressional authorization, arguing the actions did not constitute "hostilities" requiring a War Powers Act trigger.
Syria (Various actions): Both President Obama and President Trump ordered missile strikes against Syria. President Trump, for example, cited Article II powers and, according to some, the 2002 AUMF to justify strikes in 2017. President Biden has also conducted strikes in Syria.
Yemen and other regions: Recent administrations, including President Trump and President Biden, have cited existing AUMFs and Article II powers for actions against Iran-backed militant groups in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and the Red Sea, which have involved bombing and kinetic actions. For example, the drone strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020 was authorized by President Trump under the 2002 AUMF.
It's important to differentiate between a president "using" the War Powers Act (meaning they are operating explicitly within its framework and time limits) and simply "reporting" to Congress under its requirements while potentially asserting broader constitutional authority or relying on other congressional authorizations. The majority of significant military actions involving bombing or killing since 1973 have either been conducted with specific congressional authorization (like the Gulf War) or under broad AUMFs, or by presidents asserting their inherent Commander-in-Chief powers, often leading to ongoing debates about compliance with the spirit and letter of the War Powers Act.