Prior to the American Revolution, the power over war and foreign affairs was lodged in the executive branch. European monarchs decided when to commit their countries to wars and military incursions. In countries such as Great Britain with representative assemblies, elected officials could withhold funds if they disapproved of a foreign adventure, but there their power ended.
The Founding Fathers rejected the European model. Our first charter of union, the Articles of Confederation, lodged all executive functions in Congress. Under the Articles, Congress possessed “the sole and exclusive right of determining on peace and war.” The thirteen sovereign states were forbidden to engage in hostilities except in cases of invasion or imminent attack.
So, what would the Founders think of President Donald Trump’s war on Iran? They would assume we have abandoned the U.S. Constitution and opted for the European model they rejected. Despite extensive congressional powers over foreign affairs, the president did not consult the national legislature on whether to commit American forces to war in the volatile Middle East. Trump coordinated the start of hostilities with the Israeli government, but not with representatives elected by the American people. This is the height of personal hubris.
Congress sits as mere spectators while the war spreads. Regional conflict intensifies, American service members are killed, and Israeli forces advance into Lebanon. With such a hornets’ nest kicked over, one must wonder whether at this late date Congress can have any meaningful input—especially with the president deploying more troops to the region.
The president’s war on Iran is contrary to the Constitution and rejects safeguards in our republican federation. The attack—its escalation and projected duration of weeks or months—serves as grounds for articles of impeachment. No one person—president or otherwise—should be allowed to commit the country to a Middle Eastern war without the consent of Congress.
Although the Constitution of 1787 created the presidency as the executive branch for the union, the Framers left the matters of war and peace with Congress. In a republican federation, the Founders reasoned, only the people’s representatives should be able to commit the country to war. Consequently, Article I, Section 8 vests Congress with the power to declare war, to raise armies, to equip a navy, to commission privateers to prey on enemy shipping, to call forth the state militias (today the National Guard) to repel invasions, and to make rules concerning prizes seized in conflict.
The Constitution designates the president as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but this title simply preserves civilian control over the military. It does not vest the president with authority to use our armed forces as his personal servants who he can dispatch to fight at his pleasure.
In defending the commander-in-chief power, the Federalists (those urging ratification of the Constitution) drew contrasts to the British king. In the North Carolina convention, James Iredell pointed out that the king of Great Britain “is not only the commander-in-chief of the land and naval forces, but has the power, in time of war, to raise fleets and armies. He also has the authority to declare war.” In the South Carolina convention, Charles Pinckney made similar points and stressed that the executive’s “powers did not permit him to declare war.”
James Wilson assured the Pennsylvania convention that the Constitution would not “hurry us into war” because “the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large” and not the president. Whereas the ambitions of kings are prone to carry countries into conflict, Wilson believed that “nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war.”
Related Articles
Before taxing residents more LA County should investigate IHSS spending California doesn’t need a new age requirement for social media Ron Paul: Stuck in another disastrous Middle East war Solitary confinement does not make prisons safer David Hadley: Trump 2.0 one year in – advice from a supporter This concern about the executive and war was succinctly expressed in a letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson a decade after ratification. “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts demonstrates,” elucidated Madison, “that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, and prone to it.” For this reason, Maidson explained, the Philadelphia Convention “vested the question of war in the Legislature.”If the Constitution means what it says, then Congress must reclaim the authority the Framers deliberately placed in its hands. The question is not whether one supports or opposes this particular conflict, but whether we will preserve a republic in which the momentous decision to wage war rests with the people’s representatives rather than the will of a single executive. The Founders feared the concentration of war-making power because history taught them where it leads. If we permit that power to drift back into the hands of one person, we do more than risk another protracted conflict abroad—we erode the very constitutional structure designed to safeguard our liberty at home.
William J. Watkins Jr. is a research fellow at the Independent Institute, constitutional scholar, practicing attorney, and leading advocate of strict construction originalism. He is the author of the book The Independent Guide to the Constitution: Original Intentions, Modern Inventions.
Hence then, the article about trump s iran war is grounds for impeachment according to the constitution was published today ( ) and is available on Los Angeles Daily News ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Trump’s Iran war is grounds for impeachment, according to the Constitution )
Also on site :