The article discusses claims that seeking congressional authorization for war is unconstitutional, with one individual suggesting that no other country has ever done so. However, the War Powers Resolution, which mandates such authorization and a 60-day limit, is presented as the very mechanism that could deem certain military actions constitutional. This resolution allows for a period of congressional review, thereby safeguarding Congress’s sole constitutional power to declare war as outlined in Article I, Section 8.
Read More
The Trump administration asserts that the war in Iran has concluded due to a ceasefire initiated in early April, a stance intended to circumvent the need for congressional approval. This argument, previously articulated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, posits that the ceasefire paused hostilities, thereby negating the 1973 War Powers Resolution’s requirement for seeking formal congressional authorization for military actions exceeding 60 days. Critics, including Senator Susan Collins, argue this interpretation disregards the law’s mandates, while experts like Katherine Yon Ebright contend that the War Powers Resolution’s 60-day clock cannot be paused.
Read More
House Speaker Mike Johnson stated that Congressional authorization for military action in Iran is not necessary, as the United States is not currently engaged in active warfare but rather attempting to broker peace and police the Strait of Hormuz. His comments come as the conflict approaches the 60-day mark stipulated in the War Powers Resolution, a deadline that could require the president to withdraw forces if Congress does not authorize continued hostilities. While the administration maintains it has kept Congress informed and prefers diplomacy, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested a ceasefire might pause the 60-day clock, a legal interpretation contested by some lawmakers. The conflict, which President Trump has described using various terms including “war,” has already incurred significant costs and is projected to require supplemental funding requests from Congress.
Read More
By week’s end, the declaration of a war by the former president will be plainly illegal, yet the echoes of its inception already resonate with illegality. The assertion that the ongoing military actions are merely “operations” rather than a “war” is a linguistic sleight of hand, a tactic eerily reminiscent of justifications used elsewhere to mask aggressive endeavors. This semantic evasion, when applied to a situation involving the bombing of a school during session, pushes the boundaries of acceptability far beyond established norms. The mere act of initiating such an assault, especially when diplomatic channels with Iran were purportedly open, immediately cast the entire undertaking into a legally dubious realm.… Continue reading
During her father’s confirmation hearing, Caroline Kennedy shared anecdotes suggesting a predatory nature, detailing how he once used a chainsaw to decapitate a beached whale and transport its head for five hours. She also revealed a disturbing practice of blending live baby chickens and mice to feed his hawks, a testament to his affinity for birds of prey. These accounts, following previous unsettling stories about the treatment of animals, illustrate a pattern of behavior that elicits increasing disbelief and, ultimately, a sense of dark amusement.
Read More
Despite a two-week ceasefire announcement with Iran, Democratic lawmakers are intensifying calls for President Trump’s removal from office, citing his prior threats of “genocide” and an allegedly illegal war launched without congressional authorization. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Yassamin Ansari, among others, argue that these actions, including alleged war crimes, demonstrate the president’s unfitness and necessitate his removal via the 25th Amendment or impeachment. With at least 85 House Democrats supporting removal and new impeachment articles filed, lawmakers are vowing to pursue a War Powers Resolution to end the conflict upon their return from recess, emphasizing that a permanent end to the “reckless war of choice” is paramount.
Read More
Amidst President Trump’s threats of “wholesale annihilation” against Iran, Congress remains in recess and has not initiated any hearings or debates regarding the ongoing conflict, which has resulted in casualties and regional instability. While some Democrats are urging the House to reconvene to vote on the War Powers Resolution and potentially invoke the 25th Amendment, Republican leadership has remained silent. This inaction, despite the president’s escalating rhetoric and the war’s significant consequences, highlights a partisan divide and a lack of congressional oversight in matters of war.
Read More
The ongoing military actions in Iran, initiated under Trump’s directive, have expanded beyond initial expectations of a short duration, escalating into a broader regional conflict with a significant and rising death toll. This campaign is proving exceedingly costly, with initial estimates of over $5 billion in the first three days and projections of up to $1 billion per day, leading U.S. Central Command to plan for expenditures ranging from $100 billion to $180 billion or more. The commencement of this war also coincides with a challenging period for Republicans leading up to the midterm elections, as Democratic momentum grows and the president’s approval rating declines.
Read More
Senate Republicans are poised to reject a Democratic-led war powers resolution aimed at halting President Trump’s actions against Iran, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune asserting the president is acting in the nation’s best interest. Democrats argue that initiating military action without congressional approval is unconstitutional and puts troops at risk. While the resolution faces an uphill battle with some Democrats also opposing it, its consideration is seen as a crucial opportunity to debate the justification and morality of the ongoing conflict. House Republicans also anticipate blocking a similar measure, with Speaker Mike Johnson deeming it dangerous to restrict the commander-in-chief’s authority.
Read More
The article details how a U.S.-Israeli strike against Iran, reportedly ordered by President Donald Trump, faced significant legal challenges, with experts asserting violations of both international and U.S. law. The operation, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, is criticized for potentially contravening the War Powers Resolution due to insufficient notification to Congress, despite a briefing to a select group of leaders. Furthermore, the involvement of U.S. service members in offensive hostilities without explicit congressional authorization raises grave constitutional concerns.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood