A major decision by the Republican-controlled US Senate, Know Trump’s condition

Washington, D.C.: A Democratic attempt to restrict President Donald Trump’s ability to take more military action against Iran was rejected by the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday, hours after Trump said he was considering more attacks.

The war powers resolution, which would have forced the president to obtain legislative permission for any additional operations against Iran, was defeated by the chamber by a vote of 53–47. Although all of the senators voted, the count was not finalized until late in the evening.

In a significant split, Republican Rand Paul voted “yes,” while Democrat John Fetterman deviated from his party to vote “no.”

The Significance of It

Days after Trump escalated tensions over Iran’s war with Israel by ordering airstrikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend, the vote was held. Iran launched missiles toward a U.S. military installation in Qatar on Monday in retaliation.

Despite Monday’s ceasefire deal between Tehran and Tel Aviv, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of violating the pact and vowed to attack Tehran in retaliation, a claim Iran’s military disputes.

The Senate’s decision is a resounding win for the White House and demonstrates the extent to which Republicans and some Democrats are prepared to let Trump launch an independent military campaign against Iran.

Things You Should Know

Sponsored by Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, the bill would have invoked the 1973 War Powers Act, which limits the president’s ability to engage in military hostilities without the approval of Congress. Before U.S. troops could have taken any further military action against Iran, the White House would have had to alert legislators and get both House and Senate consent.

Before approving last weekend’s strike, the White House ought to have consulted Congress, according to a number of Democrats and even some Republicans. They point out that Congress, not the president, has the authority to declare war under the Constitution, and they claim that the War Powers Act was created to prevent presidents from avoiding this duty.

The Constitution divides but does not always specify war powers. The powers granted to Congress by Article I, Section 8 include the ability “to declare war,” “raise and support armies,” “provide and maintain a navy,” and “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” This indicates that Congress has the express power to choose when the United States enters a war. However, World War II was the final official declaration of war by Congress. Since then, military operations have usually been conducted under wide authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or solely at the president’s discretion, ranging from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

When summoned into the actual service of the United States, the president is designated as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states,” according to Article II, Section 2. Once the military is in operation, this gives the president extensive power to command it.

Following the Vietnam War, Congress established the War Powers Resolution in 1973 to limit the president’s authority to declare war. Unless Congress specifically authorizes or declares war, it requires the president to inform Congress 48 hours before sending forces and restricts such deployments to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal time. Nevertheless, both Republican and Democratic presidents have often claimed that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional or have disregarded its provisions.

Trump twice vetoed legislation enacted under the War Powers Act during his first term, including one that expressly limited his power to attack Iran. When President Barack Obama launched airstrikes on Libya without clear consent in 2011, Congress grappled with similar issues and criticized him for going beyond his authority.

This time, Republican leaders on Capitol Hill have been quite supportive of the Trump administration. Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House, has even gone so far as to claim that the War Powers Act is illegal. Republican leaders, however, said the president needs flexibility to swiftly address threats and have accused Democrats of using the issue for political ends. “Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight,” stated Senator John Barrasso, the second-ranking Republican in the chamber, who insisted that “national security moves fast” and that congressional consultation could “prevent the president from protecting us in the future.”

However, other Republicans don’t agree. According to Senator Rand Paul, the founders intended for Congress to retain the authority to declare war. In the Federalist Papers, Madison said that the executive branch is the one that is most likely to go to war. Paul explained his uncommon split with his party by saying, “Therefore, the Constitution carefully granted that authority to the legislature.”

The Trump administration contends that the president already has all the power required. Citing his constitutional authority as commander in chief and his foreign policy responsibilities, Trump wrote to Congress this week, justifying the Iran attack as an act of “collective self-defense of our ally, Israel.”

What Individuals Are Saying

On the Senate floor, Republican Senator John Barrasso stated, “Of course, Democrats hurried to make this successful assault into a political battle. National security is a fast-paced field. ‘Give the commander in chief genuine power’ is because of this.

“What would we have said if Iran or any other nation had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities?” said Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen. We would appropriately refer to it as an act of war.

Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat, stated, “War is too big an issue to leave to the moods, whims, and daily vibes of any one person.”

What Follows

Similar bills have also been submitted in the House in an attempt to limit Trump’s military authority, but their chances of success are slim in a Republican-led body that is unlikely to oppose the White House.