JONATHAN TURLEY: Dems suddenly outraged over presidential war powers

7 hours ago 2

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democrats in Washington are again talking impeachment. Politicians and pundits are expressing outrage over President Donald Trump attacking Iran without a prior authorization of Congress. It is the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law where politicians are "shocked, shocked" that Trump is using the authority that they accepted in Democratic predecessors. Fourteen years ago this week, I was in court litigating that very issue when President Barack Obama attacked Libya. Most Democrats supported or were silent on the action.

Nevertheless, Democratic members are now calling for impeachment, while others are declaring the attacks unconstitutional. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is particularly shocked that Trump took the action and is calling for a vote under the War Powers Act.

'NOT CONSTITUTIONAL': CONGRESS EVOKES NEW WAR POWERS RESOLUTION TO REJECT TRUMP'S STRIKES ON IRAN

Schumer insisted that "no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has issued a similar statement.

Schumer is the same politician who was silent or supportive in earlier unilateral attacks by Democratic presidents. In 2011, Obama approved a massive military campaign against Libya.  I represented a bipartisan group of members of Congress challenging that action. We were unsuccessful, as were such prior challenges.

I have long criticized the abandonment of the clear language of the Constitution on the declaration of wars. Only eleven such declarations have been made in our history. That has not happened since World War II in 1942. Over 125 military campaigns have spanned from Korea to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It is not a rule honored solely in the breach.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei image on the wall during a pro-Iran demonstration

Iranian worshippers hold up their hands as signs of unity with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, during an anti-Israeli rally to condemn Israel's attacks on Iran, in downtown Tehran, Iran, on June 20, 2025.  (Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Democrats were supportive when Clinton launched cruise missile attacks under Operation Infinite Reach on two continents on August 20, 1998. He ordered attacks in locations in Khartoum, Sudan, and Khost Province, Afghanistan.

The War Powers Act has always been controversial and largely ineffectual. Presidents have long asserted the inherent powers to conduct such attacks under their Article II authority as the designated Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The WPA requires the President to inform Congress within 48 hours in a written notice to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate of the action.

The WPA further bars the use of armed forces in such a conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. There is a further 30-day withdrawal period.

President Trump reportedly did immediately notify Congress after the attack under the WPA.

Presidents have long maintained their right to deploy military assets unilaterally without congressional approval to address imminent threats. President Thomas Jefferson did so when he went to war with the Barbary Pirates at the start of the Nineteenth Century.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama

Democrats said nothing when President Barack Obama ordered a bombing campaign in Libya without Congressional approval. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Presidents have also routinely ignored the WPA when it limited their ability to conduct foreign military operations. In 1999, Clinton ignored the 60-day deadline and continued to bomb forces in Kosovo. His actions were also challenged, but the court in Campbell v. Clinton just shrugged off the violation and said it was a non-justiciable political question.

In responding to the current demands, Trump could look to a curious ally: Hillary Clinton.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for unilateral attacks during the  Obama Administration. She dismissed the need to consult, let alone secure authorization, from Congress. In March 2011, Clinton testified that there was no need for such consultation and declared that the Administration would ignore a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.

Obama also defied the War Powers resolution on Syria. He actually did ask for congressional authorization to take military action in that country in 2013, but Congress refused to approve it. He did it anyway.  Despite Congress expressly denying "authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces," both Obama and Trump did precisely that.

Trump was wise to notify Congress and is currently in compliance with the Act. However, what occurs after that is anyone’s guess. The WPA and the AUMF have been paper tigers for decades and most in Congress wanted it that way. Politicians long ago abandoned their responsibilities to declare war. What remains has been little more than political theater.

Even under the WPA, Trump would have 60 days to prosecute this war and another 30 days to draw down forces without congressional approval. The court, in Campbell v. Clinton, noted that even if Clinton violated the WPA by continuing operations after the 60-day period, he was technically in compliance by withdrawing forces before the end of the 90-day period.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Trump could likely prosecute this campaign in 90 days. Indeed, if it goes beyond 90 days, we will likely be facing a potential global war with retaliatory strikes on both sides. In such an environment, it is very unlikely that Congress would withhold support for our ongoing operations.

In the meantime, the calls for impeachment are absurd given the prior actions of presidents in using this very authority. Once again, some Democrats appear intent on applying a different set of rules for impeaching Trump than any of his predecessors. Trump can cite both history and case law in allowing presidents to take such actions. At most, the line over war powers is murky. The Framers wanted impeachments to be based on bright-line rules in establishing high crimes and misdemeanors.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

This is all part of the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law. Members will once again express their shock and disgust at the use of the same authority that they once accepted from prior presidents. Trump has a great number of risks in this action from global military and economic consequences. The War Powers Act is not one of them if history is any measure.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY

Read Entire Article
Sekitar Pulau| | | |