In perusing this primal scream purportedly representing serious and thoughtful research and analysis, this unbiased reader, after deleting the voluminous tirades of vituperative and slanderous prose, determined that the apparent major premise of this piece was the unfounded assertion that the President of the United States has acted in an unconstitutional manner in ordering the US military to begin combat operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The article later states that if declaring this war to be unconstitutional is in error then readers are invited to correct it where it has erred. In the interest of serious and thoughtful dialogue, I will proceed to offer facts in evidence to indicate that the current use of US military power is indeed a constitutional use of Presidential Executive authority.
However, before proceeding, I will gladly acknowledge that this article is correct in its assertion that the United States Congress has the power to declare war under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. From the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 until 2021 (the last date for which I have documented factual evidence) the Congress has issued eleven declarations of war on five separate occasions. These are:
18 June 1812 – The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
13 May 1846 – Mexico
25 April 1898 – Spain
6 April 1917 – Germany and 7 December 1917 – Austria-Hungary
8 December 1941 – Japan; 11 December 1941 – Germany and Italy; 5 June 1942 – Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania
It must also be pointed out that the President, under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution is the Commander in Chief of the US military with authorities that are operational, immediate, and independent. Just as the Congress does not need Presidential permission, for example, to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11) neither does the President need the permission of Congress in the form of a declaration of war to act militarily to defend American interests. Indeed, in this same time frame of 1788 to 2021 Presidents of the United States have deployed US military forces in at least 456 combat operations. Among the more significant of these deployments are:
1798-1800: President John Adams and the Quasi War with France
1801-1805: President Thomas Jefferson and the First Barbary Pirates War
1914-1917: President Woodrow Wilson ordering the US Army to invade Mexico
1950-1953: President Harry Truman engaging in a “police action” in Korea
1964-1973: President Lyndon Johnson initiating combat operations in Vietnam
1993-1999: President Bill Clinton ordering US combat operations in Bosnia
2011: President Barrack Obama ordering military operations against Libya
Thus, based on the historical record and established precedent, President Trump has acted well within his constitutional authorities in taking military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran. To insist otherwise would require acknowledging that Presidents Adams, Jefferson, Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, Obama, and many others as well have all acted in an unconstitutional manner.
In addition to this historical record, there is also Legislative statute: The Third Congress of the United States passed on Feb. 28, 1795, “An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions …” which was subsequently signed by President George Washington. The act states that “… whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state, or states, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia, as he shall think proper …”
The constitutionality of this act was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Martin v. Mott [25 U.S. 19 (1827)]. The case involved Jacob E. Mott, a member of the New York militia, who refused to enter service when called upon by the President during the War of 1812. Mott was fined by a Court Martial for his failure to comply, and his goods were seized to collect the fine. Mott appealed this decision and the case eventually came before the Supreme Court which held that the President had the exclusive authority to decide whether the exigency for calling forth the militia had arisen and that his decision was conclusive upon all other persons.
In reaching this conclusion the Court reasoned that the power to call forth the militia was a high and delicate authority given to the President by Congress under the Act of 1795 as noted above. The Court found that military decisions in times of emergency required prompt and unhesitating obedience, and allowing subordinate officers or militia members to question the President’s judgment would undermine military discipline and efficiency. The Court further stated that the President, as Commander in Chief, was naturally vested with the discretion to determine when such exigencies arose, and his judgment in such matters must be seen as conclusive to avoid jeopardizing public interests. The Court also noted that the requirement for the President to be the sole judge of the exigency was implicit both in the statute and the Constitution, and that any potential abuse of power was checked by the constitutional framework, including elections and accountability to the public.
Thus, in conclusion, based on the United States Constitution, historical precedent, Congressional statute and Supreme Court ruling, President Trump is well within his constitutional authorities to employ military force against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Have you read our constitution. The phrase, “two wrongs don’t make things right,” comes to mind.
You above all should understand the sheer incompetence of the administration failing to address the American people, notifying congress nor and this is the big one… making the slightest preparation to defend the homeland against the most serious terrorist threat our nation has ever experienced. That is of course, other than the far-right which has been the dangerous and lethal threat domestically for over twenty years.
The purpose of my reply was to refute your erroneous supposition that the duly elected President of the United States has acted in an unconstitutional manner by engaging in military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran which has been at war with the US for the past 47 years. Since your reply fails to address my well, thorough, and substantially documented refutation one must assume that you accept my answer. Dodging and jinking and changing the subject does not suffice as a thoughtful response. Nice try, my friend, but obfuscation is neither an academic nor an analytical virtue. V/R Doc B
I do appreciate your attempt at humor but you refused to address the full constitutional requirements of coordinating with congress and making a case to the American people. I am pleased that you finally brought facts to a discussion but selective facts or incomplete data is no different than a dishonest assessment.
Since you are insisting on some ephemeral constitutional requirement for the Executive to "coordinate" with Congress would you be ever so kind as to cite the specific reference within the Constitution for this quaint notion? Aside from the President's obligation pursuant to Article II, Section 3 to "... from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union,..." there is no constitutional requirement to the President to "coordinate" Executive Branch decisions with the Congress. I do appreciate that you are finally acknowledging that I have on this as well as many other occasions brought factual evidence to these discussions. I am glad that we can finally put this scurrilous canard to rest.
Doc, every single law in our nation is built upon our constitution. The 1973 War Powers Act, expressly explains my position. You should know this but like all of your screeds, you are obtuse when it comes to defending this overtly/ anti-constitutional administration. Please don’t begin another screed about Project 2025, the administration’s roadmap regarding constitutionality. It isn’t and there is no reasonable or supportable position to make it so. Why are you, who swore the same oath to, “protect and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic” but I adhere to my oath, while that you support the dismantling of that sacred document. To say that I am disappointed in your unending, aggressive and typically unsupportable extreme, right-wing agenda would be an understatement. The worst part is that I know that you know better, but do it anyway.
Once again, my friend, you attempt to change the subject by dropping a 500 pound red herring (the 1973 War Powers Resolution) into this discussion. Aside from concerns as to its dubious constitutionality--although this has yet to be adjudicated in Federal Courts--the WPR does not require coordination with Congress before the President commits US military forces to combat operations. The President is required by the WPR to notify both House and Senate within 48 hours of such initiation of military action but that is not the same as asking "Mother, may I" of Congress before taking military action to defend the homeland. It should be noted that no less a constitutional scholar as President Barrack Obama insisted he did not need to adhere to the WPR's notification requirements nor did his administration need congressional authorization in 2011 when he ordered military action against Libya. And constitutional scholars can't be wrong, can they? V/R Doc B
Paul,
In perusing this primal scream purportedly representing serious and thoughtful research and analysis, this unbiased reader, after deleting the voluminous tirades of vituperative and slanderous prose, determined that the apparent major premise of this piece was the unfounded assertion that the President of the United States has acted in an unconstitutional manner in ordering the US military to begin combat operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The article later states that if declaring this war to be unconstitutional is in error then readers are invited to correct it where it has erred. In the interest of serious and thoughtful dialogue, I will proceed to offer facts in evidence to indicate that the current use of US military power is indeed a constitutional use of Presidential Executive authority.
However, before proceeding, I will gladly acknowledge that this article is correct in its assertion that the United States Congress has the power to declare war under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. From the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 until 2021 (the last date for which I have documented factual evidence) the Congress has issued eleven declarations of war on five separate occasions. These are:
18 June 1812 – The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
13 May 1846 – Mexico
25 April 1898 – Spain
6 April 1917 – Germany and 7 December 1917 – Austria-Hungary
8 December 1941 – Japan; 11 December 1941 – Germany and Italy; 5 June 1942 – Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania
It must also be pointed out that the President, under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution is the Commander in Chief of the US military with authorities that are operational, immediate, and independent. Just as the Congress does not need Presidential permission, for example, to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11) neither does the President need the permission of Congress in the form of a declaration of war to act militarily to defend American interests. Indeed, in this same time frame of 1788 to 2021 Presidents of the United States have deployed US military forces in at least 456 combat operations. Among the more significant of these deployments are:
1798-1800: President John Adams and the Quasi War with France
1801-1805: President Thomas Jefferson and the First Barbary Pirates War
1914-1917: President Woodrow Wilson ordering the US Army to invade Mexico
1950-1953: President Harry Truman engaging in a “police action” in Korea
1964-1973: President Lyndon Johnson initiating combat operations in Vietnam
1993-1999: President Bill Clinton ordering US combat operations in Bosnia
2011: President Barrack Obama ordering military operations against Libya
Thus, based on the historical record and established precedent, President Trump has acted well within his constitutional authorities in taking military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran. To insist otherwise would require acknowledging that Presidents Adams, Jefferson, Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, Obama, and many others as well have all acted in an unconstitutional manner.
In addition to this historical record, there is also Legislative statute: The Third Congress of the United States passed on Feb. 28, 1795, “An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions …” which was subsequently signed by President George Washington. The act states that “… whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state, or states, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia, as he shall think proper …”
The constitutionality of this act was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Martin v. Mott [25 U.S. 19 (1827)]. The case involved Jacob E. Mott, a member of the New York militia, who refused to enter service when called upon by the President during the War of 1812. Mott was fined by a Court Martial for his failure to comply, and his goods were seized to collect the fine. Mott appealed this decision and the case eventually came before the Supreme Court which held that the President had the exclusive authority to decide whether the exigency for calling forth the militia had arisen and that his decision was conclusive upon all other persons.
In reaching this conclusion the Court reasoned that the power to call forth the militia was a high and delicate authority given to the President by Congress under the Act of 1795 as noted above. The Court found that military decisions in times of emergency required prompt and unhesitating obedience, and allowing subordinate officers or militia members to question the President’s judgment would undermine military discipline and efficiency. The Court further stated that the President, as Commander in Chief, was naturally vested with the discretion to determine when such exigencies arose, and his judgment in such matters must be seen as conclusive to avoid jeopardizing public interests. The Court also noted that the requirement for the President to be the sole judge of the exigency was implicit both in the statute and the Constitution, and that any potential abuse of power was checked by the constitutional framework, including elections and accountability to the public.
Thus, in conclusion, based on the United States Constitution, historical precedent, Congressional statute and Supreme Court ruling, President Trump is well within his constitutional authorities to employ military force against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
V/R
Doc B
SOURCES:
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R42738/R42738.33.pdf
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/rbc/rbpe/rbpe22/rbpe222/22201300/22201300.pdf
https://www.studicata.com/case-briefs/case/martin-v-mott
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep025/usrep025019/usrep025019.pdf
Have you read our constitution. The phrase, “two wrongs don’t make things right,” comes to mind.
You above all should understand the sheer incompetence of the administration failing to address the American people, notifying congress nor and this is the big one… making the slightest preparation to defend the homeland against the most serious terrorist threat our nation has ever experienced. That is of course, other than the far-right which has been the dangerous and lethal threat domestically for over twenty years.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/war_powers
Now if you please, stop lying by omission.
The purpose of my reply was to refute your erroneous supposition that the duly elected President of the United States has acted in an unconstitutional manner by engaging in military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran which has been at war with the US for the past 47 years. Since your reply fails to address my well, thorough, and substantially documented refutation one must assume that you accept my answer. Dodging and jinking and changing the subject does not suffice as a thoughtful response. Nice try, my friend, but obfuscation is neither an academic nor an analytical virtue. V/R Doc B
I do appreciate your attempt at humor but you refused to address the full constitutional requirements of coordinating with congress and making a case to the American people. I am pleased that you finally brought facts to a discussion but selective facts or incomplete data is no different than a dishonest assessment.
Since you are insisting on some ephemeral constitutional requirement for the Executive to "coordinate" with Congress would you be ever so kind as to cite the specific reference within the Constitution for this quaint notion? Aside from the President's obligation pursuant to Article II, Section 3 to "... from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union,..." there is no constitutional requirement to the President to "coordinate" Executive Branch decisions with the Congress. I do appreciate that you are finally acknowledging that I have on this as well as many other occasions brought factual evidence to these discussions. I am glad that we can finally put this scurrilous canard to rest.
Doc, every single law in our nation is built upon our constitution. The 1973 War Powers Act, expressly explains my position. You should know this but like all of your screeds, you are obtuse when it comes to defending this overtly/ anti-constitutional administration. Please don’t begin another screed about Project 2025, the administration’s roadmap regarding constitutionality. It isn’t and there is no reasonable or supportable position to make it so. Why are you, who swore the same oath to, “protect and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic” but I adhere to my oath, while that you support the dismantling of that sacred document. To say that I am disappointed in your unending, aggressive and typically unsupportable extreme, right-wing agenda would be an understatement. The worst part is that I know that you know better, but do it anyway.
Once again, my friend, you attempt to change the subject by dropping a 500 pound red herring (the 1973 War Powers Resolution) into this discussion. Aside from concerns as to its dubious constitutionality--although this has yet to be adjudicated in Federal Courts--the WPR does not require coordination with Congress before the President commits US military forces to combat operations. The President is required by the WPR to notify both House and Senate within 48 hours of such initiation of military action but that is not the same as asking "Mother, may I" of Congress before taking military action to defend the homeland. It should be noted that no less a constitutional scholar as President Barrack Obama insisted he did not need to adhere to the WPR's notification requirements nor did his administration need congressional authorization in 2011 when he ordered military action against Libya. And constitutional scholars can't be wrong, can they? V/R Doc B