Members of Congress from both parties raised concerns regarding the legality of President Donald Trump’s decision to launch military strikes against Iran on Saturday.
While prominent Republican leaders as well as numerous GOP lawmakers supported the President’s choice to strike Iran’s significant nuclear enrichment sites, dissent emerged, suggesting the action was unconstitutional without Congressional approval.
Representative Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who often aligns with Trump, expressed his reservations through a post on social media, stating, ‘While President Trump’s decision may prove just, it’s hard to conceive a rationale that’s Constitutional.’
He mentioned looking forward to Trump’s remarks later that evening.
In a similar vein, Representative Thomas Massie, R-Ky., criticized the military action by asserting, ‘This is not Constitutional.’
In response, Massie introduced a bipartisan resolution this week aimed at preventing U.S. military action against Iran without explicit authorization from Congress through either a declaration of war or a specific authorization for military force.
In brief comments from the White House on Saturday evening, Trump defended the military strikes but did not provide any legal justification for proceeding without Congress’s approval.
He later took to Truth Social to criticize Massie, labeling him a ‘lazy, grandstanding, nonproductive’ politician.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia announced intentions to compel a vote on his resolution that would mandate Congressional approval for any military action in Iran.
Kaine described the President’s actions as an ‘offensive war of choice,’ indicating that his resolution reflects a constitutional determination.
He stated, ‘We’re going to have the briefing this week. We’ll have a vote.’
He acknowledged that many Republicans might align with the view that a president can act independently but expressed hope that other members would uphold their ‘Article I responsibilities.’
According to Kaine’s office, the resolution will be eligible for a vote on Friday and is classified as ‘privileged,’ allowing him to bring it to the floor with a simple majority required for passage.
The legal ramifications of Trump’s action stem from the War Powers Resolution, which delineates that a president may only initiate military actions under three conditions: a ‘declaration of war,’ a ‘specific statutory authorization’ from Congress, or a ‘national emergency’ resulting from an attack on the U.S. or its armed forces.
In recent years, there has been a gradual ceding of military authority by Congress to presidents from both major parties.
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., voiced his disapproval during a speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, labeling Trump’s actions as ‘grossly unconstitutional.’
He asserted, ‘The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right,’ which elicited chants of ‘no more war!’ from the audience.
Several Democrats have gone so far as to claim that Trump’s military action could be construed as an impeachable offense due to the lack of Congressional approval.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., articulated that Trump’s decision is ‘absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,’ calling it a ‘grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers.’
In her view, the President’s actions put the U.S. at risk of engaging in a long-term conflict.
Representative Sean Casten, D-Ill., amplified concerns on social media, noting that the discussion transcends the merits of Iran’s nuclear program.
He stated, ‘No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress,’ insisting that this constitutes a clear impeachable offense.
Casten also urged House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to ‘grow a spine’ and uphold the war powers that belong to Congress.
In contrast, House Speaker Johnson defended Trump’s decision, stating that the President respects the Constitution.
He claimed that the airstrikes were ‘necessary, limited, and targeted’ actions that align with historical precedents set by past presidents.
Support from Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., suggests that Trump has enough political backing from the Republican-controlled Congress to withstand potential repercussions.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., criticized Trump for not seeking Congressional authorization, warning of the dangers of entangling the U.S. in a potential conflict in the Middle East.
However, he did not go so far as to label the military action as illegal or unconstitutional.
More assertive in their condemnation, House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., clearly stated, ‘The power to declare war resides solely with Congress,’ declaring Trump’s unilateral attack on Iran as unauthorized and unconstitutional.
Clark further noted that the President’s actions threaten the safety of military and diplomatic personnel in the area.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., expressed support for Kaine’s resolution as well.
He stated, ‘No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,’ urging prompt action on the resolution through the Senate floor.
Some Democrats, including Representative Steny Hoyer from Maryland and Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, publicly supported the military strikes, refraining from any legal critiques.
Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania went even further, commending Trump’s action, stating, ‘As I’ve long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS.’
Fetterman emphasized that Iran poses a significant threat, being the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, and signaled strong support for the military’s operations.
Reflecting on the divided responses, Representative Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-introduced the resolution alongside Massie, speculated on whether Trump’s anti-war supporters would stand behind the military strikes.
He remarked, ‘This is the first true crack in the MAGA base,’ referencing Trump’s critical narrative against previous military interventions, particularly during the Bush administration.
image source from：nbcnews
