If he wages war unilaterally, Trump will only be the latest of many presidents to do so
Twenty-four years ago this week, I represented a group of bipartisan members of Congress in challenging the Obama administration's decision to attack Libya without a declaration of war.
It is a curious anniversary of the litigation, because many of the politicians and pundits who supported (or remained silent on) the action of President Barack Obama are now appalled that President Trump is considering an attack on the Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow, which is buried deep in a mountain.
Later, some Democratic members would move to expand presidential powers to launch attacks without approval. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the drafter of the current legislation to limit Trump's authority, drafted legislation in 2018 to put the authorization for use of military force on virtual autopilot. That was during the first Trump administration, and I testified against that legislation as a virtual authorization for 'endless war.'
In 2011, Obama approved a massive military campaign that not only attacked Libya's capital city but also armored columns of the Libyan military. The clear intent was regime change supported by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who also rejected the need to consult with Congress, let alone secure approval before launching a massive attack on another nation.
Today, Trump is contemplating the use of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator or 'bunker buster' bomb, to destroy the facility. It may be the only weapon that can reach the underground enhancement areas, and it can only be delivered by American B-2 Spirit stealth bombers.
It takes courage to oppose such actions by a president of your own party or against an unpopular foe. Notably, among my clients 24 years ago was Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the father of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who also believes that a president should secure approval of Congress before any such attack occurs.
The other group that would demand such approval was the Framers themselves. They saw foreign entanglements and military interventions as the markings of despots and tyrants.
At the Constitutional Convention, delegate Pierce Butler insisted that a president should not be able to 'make war but when the nation will support it.' Nevertheless, he did not even receive a second to his motion because the Framers demanded real checks on this power. They imposed that limit by only allowing the nation to go to war with the express declaration of Congress.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 states that the 'sole' authority to declare war rests with Congress.
In 1793, George Washington supported the denial of this power to a president as a clear and binding promise that 'no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.'
The Framers thought that they had solved the problem. In the Pennsylvania ratification convention, James Wilson explained the need for congressional approval as a guarantee that no one will 'hurry us into war [since] it is calculated to guard against it.'
The purpose of such approval is not just to limit foreign wars but to secure the support of the people before such wars are commenced. After all, presidents get the glory of wars, but citizens pay the cost in lives and treasure.
Politicians, however, quickly became leery of taking such ownership over wars. Congress became increasingly passive in the face of popular military engagements, using ambiguous 'authorizations' to preserve the ability to later insist that they were never really in support of wars.
While some of us opposed the Iraq War, politicians like then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) were all-in on the invasion. Yet, when he ran for president, Biden insisted that he had opposed the long, drawn-out war.
Then there was Sen. John Kerry. During the Democratic primary in 2004, Kerry portrayed himself as against the Iraq War, even though he had also voted for it. Later, when confronted by George Bush in the general election over his vote against spending $87 billion to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, he offered his notorious response that 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.'
Despite the clear text of the Constitution, courts have repeatedly allowed this circumvention of Article I. Congress has only declared 11 wars while allowing more than 125 military operations, including Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan. Congress has not declared war in the 80 years since World War II.
In my case, the Obama administration would not even refer to an attack on another nation as a 'war.' It insisted that it was a 'time-limited, scope-limited military action,' or a 'kinetic action.' The court allowed the war to proceed.
Both Congress and the courts have effectively amended the Constitution to remove the requirement of war declarations.
As a result, the precedent favors Trump in arguing for his right to commit troops unilaterally. Whereas Kaine and others insist that there has been no attack by Iran on the U.S., Trump can cite the fact that Iran has killed or wounded thousands of Americans directly or through surrogates, including attacks on U.S. shipping through its Houthi proxy forces in Yemen.
More importantly, he can cite decades of judicial and congressional acquiescence.
For my part, I think the Framers were right then and they are right now. We have shown just how right they were with decades of undeclared wars and so little accountability.
The fact that these actions are presumptively unconstitutional is an inconvenient fact buried in decades of war hype and hypocrisy.
That is why Trump is unlikely to go to Congress and, as a matter of precedent, he does not have to. He will assume the same power his predecessors enjoyed, including recent Democratic presidents. With that history and politics on his side, Trump could turn Fordow into the most expensive hole in history.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump says MAGA should drop ‘pathetic loser' Massie after pushback on US strikes
President Trump said on Sunday that the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement should drop Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) after the his pushback Saturday night against the U.S. strikes against Iran. In a lengthy post on his Truth Social platform, Trump called Massie 'not MAGA' and 'a simple minded 'grandstander' who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon.' 'Massie is weak, ineffective, and votes 'NO' on virtually everything put before him (Rand Paul, Jr.), no matter how good something may be. He is disrespectful to our great military, and all that they stand for, not even acknowledging their brilliance and bravery in yesterday's attack, which was a total and complete WIN,' Trump said in his post. The president name-checked Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) because both he and Massie have opposed the president's 'big, beautiful bill.' 'Massie should drop his fake act and start putting America First, but he doesn't know how to get there — he doesn't have a clue! He'll undoubtedly vote against the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill, even though non-passage means a 68% Tax Increase for everybody, and many things far worse than that. MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!' he added. On Saturday, Trump announced that the U.S. had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. Massie quickly posted on the social platform X that Trump's bombing of Iranian nuclear sites was unconstitutional. On Tuesday, Massie introduced a war powers resolution to prohibit U.S. involvement in Iran as its conflict with Israel intensifies, signaling they may force a vote on the matter. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said he would co-sponsor the measure. The Hill has reached out to Massie and Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) office for comment.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
WSJ Interview: Lindsey Graham on Why Trump Struck Iran Now
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), a close ally of President Trump and military hawk, spoke to The Wall Street Journal in an interview Sunday. Regarding talks with Tehran, Trump felt Iran was "playing a game" and "didn't think they were genuine." One thing Trump "was thinking about, and I kept talking to him about, is if you do this, you reset the damage done" by the Afghanistan withdrawal by President Biden.
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
Kremlin warns that other nations ready to give Iran nukes: ‘Dangerous escalation has begun'
Moscow warned Sunday that several nations are prepared to supply Tehran with nuclear weapons, as Russia and China condemned America's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as deputy head of Russian President Vladimir Putin's Security Council, claimed Saturday's US airstrike — the first to use 15-ton GBU-57 'bunker-buster' bombs in combat — only caused minimal damage to Tehran's nuclear sites, including the fortified Fordow enrichment plant. Medvedev, who did not specify which countries are ready to arm Tehran, reiterated that the attacks would not stop Russia's ally in the Middle East from acquiring nuclear weapons. 5 Russian President Vladimir Putin's Security Council warned that several nations are ready to arm Iran with nuclear weapons after America's attack on Tehran's nuclear sites. Getty Images 5 Moscow holds the world's largest supply of nuclear missiles. AP The statement comes as Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he will be traveling to Moscow to meet with Putin to discuss countermeasures. 'We enjoy a strategic partnership, and we always consult with each other and coordinate our positions,' Araghchi told Russian media. Russia's Foreign Ministry described the American airstrike in Iran as 'a gross violation of international law, the UN Charter, and UN Security Council resolutions. 'It is already clear that a dangerous escalation has begun, fraught with further undermining of regional and global security,' the ministry said in a statement. 5 Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi (center) was expected to meet with Russian officials Sunday to discuss the American attack. AP 5 US heavy bombers attacked Iran's fortified Fordow fuel enrichment plan during Saturday's airstrikes. via REUTERS Beijing echoed the accusations that the US had violated international law by carrying out the airstrikes, with China's foreign ministry warning that the attack will have a ripple effect across the Middle East. But Chinese officials also said their country is committed to keep the fighting from escalating, with Beijing calling for a cease-fire. 'China is willing to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and contribute to the work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East,' the ministry said in a statement. 5 China is calling on a cease-fire in the Middle East while facing demands from the West to stop Iran from shutting down the Strait of Hormuz shipping route. KAZAKHSTAN'S PRESIDENTIAL PRESS SERVICE/AFP via Getty Images China is being pressured by the US to stop Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil shipping route whose closure would impact global prices. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday called on Beijing to make sure Iran keeps the oil port open, noting that the bulk of China's oil comes from the Strait. 'It will have some impact on us,' Rubio told CBS News' 'Face the Nation' of the possible closure of the Strait of Hormuz. 'It will have a lot more impact on the rest of the world,' he added, calling the move 'economic suicide' for Iran. With Post wires
