From Bill Clinton, to Barack Obama, to Joe
Biden, every Democratic president of the modern era has employed US
military forces to attack targets overseas, including strikes in Bosnia, Syria,
Libya and Yemen. While they sought approval from Capitol Hill in some of those
cases, Congress never provided it.
That history has muddled the Democrats’ current argument
that Trump, in striking three Iranian nuclear facilities last weekend, violated
the Constitution by acting on his own, without the formal approval of Congress.
The dynamic has not been overlooked by Republican leaders,
who have hailed the strikes on Iran as a national security necessity and
defended Trump’s powers to launch them unilaterally.
Those voices are pointing specifically to the actions of
Clinton, Obama and Biden to bolster their arguments.
“Since
World War II we have had more than 125 military operations from Korea and
Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. They have occurred without a Declaration of
War by Congress,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters after the
strikes. “Presidents of both parties have exercised that authority frequently.”
Johnson ticked off a few examples under the most recent
Democratic administrations. Biden, he noted, ordered strikes against Yemen,
Syria and Iraq. Obama sustained a months-long bombing campaign in Libya.
And Clinton had bombed parts of the former Yugoslavia during the Bosnian
war of the mid-1990s.
“Every
one of those actions were taken unilaterally and without prior authorization
from Congress,” Johnson said.
That background is forcing Democrats to reckon with that
past just as many of them are now demanding that Trump cease all military
operations in Iran without explicit congressional approval. Some of them are
quick to acknowledge the incongruity, voicing something like regret that
Congress didn’t stand more firm in the face of those unilateral Democratic
missions.
“Just because it was wrong then doesn’t mean it’s not wrong
now,” said Rep. Ted Lieu, a former Air Force attorney who’s now the vice
chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “The Constitution is the Constitution.
And it says only Congress has the power to declare war. And it’s been a
bipartisan problem, with Congress ceding way too much power to the executive
branch.”
Rep. Pete Aguilar, the chairman of the Democratic
Caucus, seemed to agree. He lamented that the politics of Washington have
sometimes curtailed Congress’s appetite for asserting its war powers as a check
on the president, especially when Congress and the White House are controlled
by opposing parties.
“That part is unfortunate. Maybe we’ve missed a few
opportunities,” Aguilar said.
“But that doesn’t mean that we turn a blind eye right now,”
he quickly added. “It doesn’t mean that we just let Donald Trump walk
all over us. It means that we stand up for our authority and speak up on behalf
of our constituents at every opportunity.”
The Constitution makes clear that Congress and the White
House both play crucial roles in conducting military operations. Article I
lends Congress the power to declare war, and Article II stipulates that the
president is “Commander and Chief” of the Armed Forces, responsible for
executing wars that Congress sanctions.
Yet
that conceptual balance has tilted heavily toward the executive branch over
most of the last century. The last time Congress formally declared war was in
1941, after Pearl Harbor. And since then, the president has assumed virtually
all power, not only to steer the Armed Forces, but also to launch them into
battle.
In 1973, in the wake of Vietnam, Congress sought to reassert
its authority by passing the War Powers Act. (President Nixon vetoed the bill,
but Congress overrode him).
The law
requires presidents to “consult with Congress before introducing United States
Armed Forces into hostilities,” but it does not demand the formal authorization
of the legislative branch.
As tensions in the Middle East exploded earlier in the
month, lawmakers in both parties sought to limit US involvement with war powers
resolutions requiring Trump to get explicit congressional consent before using
military force in Iran.
One was sponsored by three leading Democrats: Reps. Gregory
Meeks, Jim Himes and Adam Smith. Another was bipartisan, championed
by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Supporters
of the resolutions are quick to acknowledge that the president has the power to
act unilaterally in extraordinary circumstances, like if the nation is
attacked. But there’s no evidence, they say, to indicate that Iran posed an
immediate threat to Americans ahead of Trump’s strikes.
“Any president has self-defense authority under Article II
of the Constitution. But to meet that threshold, you have to show that there
was an imminent risk of attack against Americans or US facilities. That’s the
standard,” said Rep.
Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a former Army Ranger who served in
both Iraq and Afghanistan. “As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the
House Intelligence Committee, I have not seen any evidence leading up to the
attack that there was an imminent risk to Americans or to US facilities to meet
that threshold.”
Former
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) delivered a similar assessment. “If our
country is attacked, all and any powers go to the president to act,” she said.
“That didn’t exist here, so the president should have come to Congress.”
Complicating their argument are the actions of Democratic
presidents who also activated the Armed Services without congressional consent.
In
1998, for instance, in response to the terrorist bombings of US embassies in
Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton ordered the launch of cruise missiles targeting al
Qaeda strongholds in Sudan and Afghanistan. He also joined NATO forces in
bombing Serbian targets in the former Yugoslavia.
Obama infuriated liberals in Congress in launching strikes
against numerous countries during his eight-year reign, including an extensive
campaign in Libya in 2011, which helped in the toppling of President Muammar
Gaddafi, as well as subsequent incursions in Syria, Yemen and Somalia.
Obama had asked Congress for specific authorization in some
cases, but lawmakers on Capitol Hill couldn’t agree on a resolution to provide
it. Instead, those operations leaned heavily on a 2001 resolution — known as an
authorization of military force, or AUMF — passed by Congress to sanction the
Afghanistan War after the attacks of 9/11.
In the same vein, Biden used US forces to target Syria,
Yemen and Iraq.
Lieu, for one, emphasized that he was opposed to Obama’s use
of force without Congress giving the OK.
“I publicly stated at the time that Obama needed
congressional authorization to strike Syria. I believe Trump needs
congressional authorization to strike Iran,” he said.
“My view of the Constitution does not change based on what
party the president happens to belong to.”
Other Democrats sought to keep the debate focused more
squarely on current events.
“We can write books and fill your column inches with regrets
under this dome. We’ll save that for other days,” Aguilar said. “But what is in
front of us today, are we going to stand up for our constitutional authority?”
A week after the strikes, the debate over war powers may
already be academic.
On Tuesday, Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and
Israel that, if it holds, may make the constitutional disagreement moot. Massie
has said he won’t force a vote on his war powers measure if the ceasefire
continues.
Johnson has refused to consider such a resolution in any
event, calling the War Powers Act unconstitutional. And Trump officials are
expected to meet with Iranian officials later this week, when the US will seek
a commitment from Tehran to abandon any plans to produce nuclear weapons.
Still, there are plenty of questions swirling about the
ultimate success of the strikes in dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities. And
Trump, asked whether he would attack again if necessary, didn’t hesitate.
“Without question,” he said. “Absolutely.”
