What the Founding Fathers Would Say About the Strike on Iran

Key Points and Summary – The recent US strikes on Iran have reignited a critical debate over war powers, highlighting Congress’s long-term abdication of its constitutional authority to declare war.

-The failure of both the House and Senate to pass resolutions requiring congressional authorization for further military action against Iran underscores this dangerous trend.

-Despite conventional wisdom, Congress retains significant power to check the executive branch through legislative action, direct appeals to the American public, and its ultimate “power of the purse.”

-Reasserting this role is crucial to prevent presidents from unilaterally leading the nation into future conflicts.

The Iran Strikes: Did Trump Break the Law? 

While the American bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities and Iran’s symbolic retaliation have each commanded the global media’s attention, a related but overlooked drama is playing out in Washington.

Following the strikes, the Senate voted against a bill that would have required Congressional authorization for any further offensive strikes on Iran. In the House of Representatives, Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked a vote on a similar bill. This debate (which has Republicans and Democrats on either side) is not primarily about American policy regarding Iran. It is, rather, a disagreement about whether Congress ought to have a say in when and whether America goes to war.

Congress has abdicated its responsibility in matters of war and peace for so long that it now requires an act of the imagination to remember the constitutional design for matters of war. Conventional wisdom now holds that Congress is powerless in the face of a president who seeks to deploy American forces in combat. Indeed, Congress has not declared a war since 1942. Meanwhile, presidents of both parties have declared the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to be an unconstitutional limitation of executive power. The Supreme Court has often sided with wartime presidents on questions of how much discretion the executive ought to have in a time of crisis. Mike Johnson called the War Powers Act an unconstitutional limitation on executive authority. In this environment it is reasonable to ask what can Congress do to reassert its authority when a president wants to go to war.

Defenders of maximalist presidential wartime powers argue that today’s technology requires unilateral authority in military matters. This argument is wrong. It is true that missiles can now be launched at a moment’s notice. It is truer still that the American system of warmaking is designed to respond to a perennial problem: That a republican government ought to have broad societal commitment before entering into an armed conflict.

Even Alexander Hamilton, the most important early advocate of a strong presidency, concedes as much in Federalist #69. Hamilton writes:

“The president is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would nominally be the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance would be much inferior to it…[The power] of the British king extends to the declaring of war and the raising and regulating of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration would appertain to the legislature.”

The fact that it is difficult to imagine today’s Congress taking back its central place in foreign policy is not actually an impediment to Congress acting differently. Congress should reassert its role in foreign policy before the next crisis presents itself. How can the American people weigh in on the most important decision our government makes unless Congress takes a more active role? Despite its recent behavior, Congress retains substantial constitutional and practical powers related to war and peace. There are three chief tools the legislative body has at its disposal.

The first power Congress could deploy now is to revive and pass both of the aforementioned House and Senate resolutions, condemning American attacks on Iran without congressional approval. This move could lead to the Trump administration defying Congress, should the President wish to order additional airstrikes on Iranian territory. Or it could convince the President to ask for a formal declaration of war on Iran, which would entail the public debate and nationwide attention such a decision merits.

Second, members of Congress who oppose a new American war could take their case to their voters. They could hold town halls, organize bi-partisan events, secure time on influential podcasts, and wage social media campaigns designed to quickly inform the American people of the stakes in this decision. Most Americans, including most Trump supporters, oppose America going to war. As the only broadly representative arm of the federal government, Congress is uniquely situated to channel the American people’s aversion to a potential quagmire into meaningful political capital.

Lastly, Congress maintains the power of the purse. Congress has often been unwilling to cut funding to quell unwise foreign policies, but nothing prevents it from using this power in the future.

The desire to end Iran’s nuclear program and even to destroy the Iranian regime is understandable for American policymakers. These same desires are even more understandable for Israelis. The thing American policymakers must keep in mind, though, is that the United States cannot remove all malignant actors across the world.

Because going to war is such a serious and consequential choice, it would be best to restore some checks and balances to the process, helping ensure that such decisions are not made lightly or unilaterally.

About the Author: Dr. John Kitch

John Kitch is a Contributing Fellow at Defense Priorities and an assistant professor of instruction in the political science department at Texas State University.