What can the law on war powers and can prevent Trump from attacking Iran? | Donald Trump News

Speaking with journalists on the lawn of the White House, President Donald Trump played Coy when asked if he would bring the United States to the United States The War of Israel against Iran.

“I can do it. I may not be doing it,” he said on Wednesday.

US officials and the president’s allies stressed that the decision to get involved in the war – or not – lies in Trump, stressing that they trust his instinct.

“He is the singular guidance hand of what will happen from that moment,” the spokesperson for the State Department, Tammy Bruce on Tuesday.

But anti-war defenders argued that all of this should not be in Trump and that Congress must be the ultimate decision-maker in relation to war and peace, according to the American Constitution.

While Trump seems to be referring more and more to the possibility of American engagement in the conflict, some legislators seek to reaffirm this role of the congress under the Act of war powers.

But what are the laws that guide a declaration of war, and could Trump involve the United States in the war without the consent of the congress?

Here’s what you need to know about the laws that govern war decisions in the United States.

What does the American Constitution say?

Article 1 of the American Constitution, which has established the government’s legislative branch and describes its functions, says that Congress has the power to “declare war”.

Some defenders consider that this provision means that the legislators, not the president, have the authority on American military interventions.

When will the United States have officially declared war?

In 1942, during the Second World War. Since then, the United States has gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq While making strikes and interventions in many countries – Serbia, Libya, Somalia and Yemen to name only a few.

What authority does the president have the war?

According to article II of the Constitution, the president is appointed “commander -in -chief” of the armed forces.

The presidents have the power to order the military to respond to imminent attacks and threats. Beyond that, their war powers are limited by the congress. Article II allows them to direct military operations once the congress authorized a war. They are responsible for the mobilization of the military under the directives of the legislators.

That said, successive presidents used the ability to lead the military in an emergency to carry out attacks which they supervise as defensive or in response to threats.

How did the United States send soldiers to Iraq and other places without official war statements?

Unless one declaration of war, the Congress can give powers the president to use the military for specific objectives through legislation known as authorization for the use of military force (AUMF).

For example, following the September 11 attacks in 2001The Congress adopted an AUMF which gave the president of the time, George W Bush, general powers to carry out what was going to become the global “war against terrorism”.

And a year later, he exceeded another AUMF allowing the use of soldiers against the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which became the basis of the 2003 invasion.

The two authorizations remain in place and the presidents continue to rely on them to carry out strikes without first requesting the approval of the congress. For example, the assassination of the Iranian High General Djibouti and Somali In 2020 in Baghdad was authorized by Trump under AUMF 2003.

During Trump’s first term, he was worrying that he could use AUMF 2001 to strike Iran as part of the baseless affirmation that Tehran supports Al-Qaeda.

When was the law on war powers adopted?

Despite the articles described in the Constitution, the presidents found ways to bypass the Congress in matters of war. Thus, in 1973, after decades of American intervention in Vietnam and elsewhere in Asia, legislators adopted the resolution of war powers to reaffirm their authority over military action.

The law restricts the powers of the war of the president – or it was at least his intention.

He was passed after The secret bombardment of President Richard Nixon of CambodgeWho killed dozens, even hundreds of thousands of civilians and led to generalized demonstrations in the United States.

What are the main provisions of the law on war powers?

Federal law has been designed to limit the power of the American president to commit the United States in armed conflicts.

Adopted by the veto of Nixon, the resolution requires “in the absence of a declaration of war” that the president informs the congress within 48 hours of military action and limits deployments to 60 or 90 days unless the authorizations to extend them are adopted.

Before American troops are committed abroad, the congress must be consulted “in all possible cases,” he said.

Why is the war of war powers relevant now?

With the possibility of an American intervention in the assembly in Iran, the legislators looked at the law of five decades and made pressure for their own version.

On Monday, the Democratic senator Tim Kaine presented a bill requiring Trump, a Republican, request Congress before ordering military strikes against Iran. This was followed Tuesday by a bill similar to the House of Representatives by American representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Republican, and Democrat Ro Khanna from California.

A law on war against Iran, presented by the Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, seeks to “prohibit the use of military force against Iran and for other purposes”.

But even if some surveys find that Trump supporters are against war with Iran, the adoption of these bills in the legislature controlled by the Republican remains unlikely.

Why is new legislation necessary if it is in the constitution?

Despite the constitutional separation of war powers, executive and legislative branches have jockey on these roles throughout American history.

The most important of these incidents – and the last time that such a case appeared at the Supreme Court – took place in 1861 at the start of the American civil war when President Abraham Lincoln blocked the southern ports of the months before the congress, the Congress legally declared war on the Confederation. The highest court finally judged that the acts of the president were constitutional because the executive “can repel sudden attacks”.

Throughout history, the war declarations of the formal congress have stay rare. There are not only 11.

Instead, Congress has traditionally authorized a wide range of military resolutions.

Does the war of war powers have teeth?

Almost since its adoption, the law of 1973 was considered by certain criticisms to be deeply ineffective – more a political tool for the legislators to express dissent than as a real control of power. (In the 1980s, the senator at the time, Joe Biden, led a sub-comity which concluded that the law was not lower than its intention.)

The resolutions of the congress aimed at putting an end to the military implications not authorized by the Congress are subject to a presidential veto, which can only be replaced by two thirds of the majority votes in the Chamber and the Senate.

Others have argued that the law played an important role in the rights of the congress and the creation of a framework for rapid presidential reports to the congress. The more than 100 reports that have been sent to the congress since 1973 semblance transparency.

How do presidents see the act?

While Nixon was the noisiest of his opposition to the law on war powers, he is hardly the only president to seem critical. Modern presidents systematically bypass the law, using creative legal arguments to bypass its requirements.

The executive power has since regularly expanded its war powers, in particular after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

AUMF 2001 and AUMF in Iraq 2002 were used to justify attacks on “terrorist groups” in at least 19 countries, according to the Committee of Friends on National Legislation.

“The executive power extended this authorization to cover groups which had no connection with the attacks of September 11, including those such as the Islamic State (Isil), which did not even exist at the time,” wrote Heather Brandon-Smith, the legislative director of foreign policy of the non-profit organization, in a briefing.

And while organizations like the International Crisis Group have urged a rehaul or an abrogation from AUMF, successive administrations have shown little interest in doing so. In recent years, the efforts of the Congress aimed at repealing the alms 2001 and 2002 have only just started to get out of the acts.

The Senate in 2023 vote To repeal the AUMF 2001, although this decision was largely considered symbolic. The house in the same way vote To repeal the AUMF 2002 in 2021. But the two laws remain in force.

Can the law on war powers prevent Trump from wage war in Iran?

It remains to be seen, but it does not seem likely.

During Trump’s first term, Congress sought to limit the presidency of war for the first time since the Vietnam War.

In 2019, Congress approved A bill to end the United States for the war of the Saudi Arab Emirates in Yemen, which quickly prevail over veto.

A year later, a similar situation took place after Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Soleimani.

In response, the two Congress Chambers pass legislation aimed at limiting the capacity of a president to wage war in Iran.

This legislation was opposed to the veto by Trump, and once again, there were not enough Republicans to respond to the majority of two -thirds necessary in the two houses to pass the anchoring of the veto.

Since the balance of power in the congress, moving completely to the Republicans in the second term of Trump, the new resolutions of war powers have faced an even more rigid battle.