Cnn
–
President Donald Trump In order to bomb Iran’s nuclear installations Presents a new test of the Constitution and the extent of the presidential powers to carry out a war despite a lack of approval from the congress.
The administration is based on the authority of the President under Article II of the Constitution, two senior administration officials told CNN, who affirms that he has the power to direct the American military forces necessary to advance American national interests abroad. The office of the White House lawyer and the Ministry of Justice were both involved in the legal analysis of strikes. The administration relied, in part, on memos on the war powers written by the DOJ legal advisers’ office under the previous administrations of the two parties.
“The president is clearly well in his powers of article II here,” said a former senior American official at CNN. “End of history.”
But this is not a point of view of many legal experts or universally approved by democratic and republican legislators, who underline the unambiguous declaration of the Constitution according to which only the congress can declare war, the absence of a law similar to the authorization of the era of war in Iraq for the use of military and – critical – the lack of an imminent threat to the United States.
In 1973, by responding to the disastrous war in Vietnam, the Congress invaded the veto of President Richard Nixon to adopt significant legislation, the resolution of war powers, which sought to slow down presidents concerning the use of military force.
“This is a large -scale action for me to think that it is likely that it is considered a war, and not only a small very limited strike.
“The War Powers Act requires a prior consultation with the Congress,” whenever possible “, before entering the American troops in hostilities,” added Somin. “Here, I think it was obviously possible, and it was also obviously not done.”
The Supreme Court was generous in approval of the extensive use of power by Trump, in particular its Immunity Last year. This point of view also contributed to the analysis, said a senior white house official.
“It is not technical regulations,” said Chris Anders, principal lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. “It is literally one of the powers listed” of the Constitution.
In federalist journalists, James Madison has argued with an exception that has been strongly discussed since – that the president can use force if necessary to “push a sudden attack on the United States”.
“If he is applied to Iran,” said Anders, that wouldn’t respond to this test. “The use of bombings against installations that have been there for years, perhaps decades, and were not about to be part of a sudden attack on the United States.”
A senior official of the Ministry of Justice said that if this conflict continued for an extended period, the administration may have to go to the convention for approval, but argued that “bombing three nuclear sites” does not increase the level of approval of the congress. The official also noted that the Trump administration had the support of the senior leaders of the Chamber and the Senate.
Senator Bernie Sanders learns on us strikes on Iran during the speech
Democratic and republican presidents have bypassed the congress for strikes or military action for decades.
In the past 40 years, the powers of article II have been used for the use of President George HW Bush against Panama to overthrow the Dictator Manuel Noriega, the use by President Barack Obama of air strikes in Libya and Trump in his first mandate against Syria and Iran.
“The commander -in -chief can take measures to protect American interests around the world,” said John Bolton, a former national security adviser from Trump in CNN.
“We saw Iran sponsor terrorism in Lebanon in 1983, we saw him help to arm the militias in Iraq who killed Americans with RPGs manufactured in Iran,” said Bolton. “They threaten our forces in the region for years.”
The presidents relied on a collection of legal experts from various agencies to examine their actions. The lawyers of the White House used the group, which included the main legal experts in the national security of defense and state services, the CIA, and the office of legal advisers and the national security division of the Ministry of Justice, to offer advice to the President before taking a major national security decision.
Trump’s White House relied on these experts than previous administrations, according to current and old US officials. His Ministry of Justice has already largely adopted the idea of broad presidential power.
“Although the United States is not the world’s police officer, as it has increased, the extent of its regional interests has expanded and threats to national interests posed by foreign disorders have increased,” wrote the office of legal advice In 2018 Regarding air strikes against Syria.
“He essentially repeats the abuses of a certain number of previous administrations, notably Obama, With the 2011 war in Libya“Said Somin.” But the main thing is that it is a kind of abuse that is not unprecedented, although this is not correct. »»
Applying anything against Trump may be impossible by the legal system, because the courts have been skeptical of which has the right to continue it and if such debates should be left to political branches.
The full room where the Senate could in theory question Trump in court, as did the house led by then a democrat during his first mandate concerning the border wall. But while a high -level Federal Court of Appeal supported the trial on the basis of a Ploting disputeHe was then released as theoretical.
“This is the fundamental question of the constitutional authority. If they were to bring legal action, the courts would not intervene,” said Bolton. “It is a fight between the two branches.”
Bipartite concerns, however, will not move the needle without help from management, which is unlikely on the basis of the president of the chamber, Mike Johnson on Saturday.
“The president fully respects the power of the congress of article I, and the necessary, limited and targeted strike this evening, follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under the presidents of the two parties,” said Johnson in an article on social networks.
Republican representative Thomas Massie was surprised.
“There was no imminent threat to the United States, which would be what would allow this. And I think it is special to hear this from the Chamber’s president,” said the Kentucky Congress on “Face The Nation” of CBS. “” Listen, the congress was on vacation last week when it all happened. We were not informed. They should have reminded us all. ”
Bolton: Trump made the right decision for America by hitting Iran
Massie and the Democrat representative Ro Khanna seek to reaffirm the authority of the Congress on Military Action with a co -resolution of the powers of war. Democratic senator Tim Kaine said “Fox News Sunday” that the head of the Senate minority Chuck Schumer was putting for a vote “as soon as possible” on a resolution so that “all the members of the Senate must declare whether or not the United States should be at war against Iran”.
American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s were “at least” debated in the congress at the time with requests from the president of the time, George W. Bush, noted Massie.
“It should have been declarations of war, but at least they made an authorization to appeal to the military force,” said Massie. “We didn’t have that. It was turned upside down.”
Some legislators and legal experts consider the Second War in Iraq as a precedent for the action of the Congress – and also a warning to review the information.
“We are in Yellowcake uranium lands,” said a former national security official, refering to the botched information that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. “The congress should ask questions about the information and the legal results they have made before taking this climbing measure.”
Democratic and republican administrations have repeatedly extended the 2002 authorization for the use of military force, which authorized war in Iraq, as a legal authority for military action in places outside Iraq. An anterior alms that authorized the action against Al-Qaeda and the associated groups was also used beyond what was designed in the post-September 11 era.
“The problem is that, historically, the only significant control of the presidential abuses of war powers was the decline in the congress,” said Stephen Vladeck, CNN legal analyst and professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. “But it was at this point that the congress took its constitutional and institutional responsibilities seriously.”
The Anders of ACLU says that there is still time for Congress to act on a bipartite basis, suggesting public hearings to disseminate the military and legal justifications of the Trump administration. The congress could also consider restricting funds for such actions without its membership.
It is also a chance for a real national debate.
“An advantage that arrives at the executive branch when he goes to the congress and requests authorization that there is a clear examination of what the United States enters, so there is much more national membership,” said Anders.
“This is part of the genius of the way the Constitution was created.”
Zachary Wolf of CNN contributed to this report