Trump’s Iran strikes get legal cover as scholars say Article II playbook spans Obama era and beyond
Who benefits from this decision?
President Donald Trump’s legal case for ordering strikes on Iran without prior congressional authorization is not novel, according to legal scholars, and instead tracks the modern Article II template that past presidential administrations have used to justify limited military operations abroad.
"Whether you agree or disagree with Obama or any of the other presidents who used military force, like in Haiti with 20,000 troops on the ground (in 1994 under the Clinton administration), this is what the founders anticipated when they divided the power," Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow and acting director of the Institute for Constitutional Government Cully Stimson told Fox News Digital in a phone interview Monday.
"They did not want to have what we had in Mother England, where the king made the decision alone," he said.
Trump’s Iran strikes are reigniting the long-running tug-of-war between Congress’ war powers and presidents’ Article II claims to act quickly against threats. Legal scholars and critics point to past precedents and the War Powers Resolution as the key guideposts as some lawmakers move to curb further action in Iran.
PELOSI'S WAR POWERS FLIP-FLOP EXPOSED IN RESURFACED OBAMA-ERA CLIP CONTRADICTS TRUMP CRITICISM ON IRAN
The U.S. military launched joint strikes with Israel on Iran beginning Saturday without congressional approval. Trump administration officials said they provided congressional notification to the "Gang of Eight," a bipartisan group of top congressional intelligence leaders, ahead of the strikes, but Congress did not hold a vote to approve them.
Instead, the Trump administration has argued that the U.S. was facing an "imminent threat." Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. was not going to "sit there and absorb a blow" from Iran and that the operation was needed at this juncture**, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the operation** "is not a so-called regime change war" or a war like in Iraq that was open-ended, but a targeted mission born out of escalating threats.
"Our president has guts," Hegseth said during a press conference Monday. "Iran's stubborn and self-evident nuclear pursuits, their targeting of global shipping lanes and their swelling arsenal of ballistic missiles and killer drones were no longer tolerable risks. Iran was building powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions."
Democratic lawmakers, as well as some Republicans, have denounced the strikes as "illegal," arguing they did not obtain congressional approval first and drafting …
Who benefits from this decision?
President Donald Trump’s legal case for ordering strikes on Iran without prior congressional authorization is not novel, according to legal scholars, and instead tracks the modern Article II template that past presidential administrations have used to justify limited military operations abroad.
"Whether you agree or disagree with Obama or any of the other presidents who used military force, like in Haiti with 20,000 troops on the ground (in 1994 under the Clinton administration), this is what the founders anticipated when they divided the power," Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow and acting director of the Institute for Constitutional Government Cully Stimson told Fox News Digital in a phone interview Monday.
"They did not want to have what we had in Mother England, where the king made the decision alone," he said.
Trump’s Iran strikes are reigniting the long-running tug-of-war between Congress’ war powers and presidents’ Article II claims to act quickly against threats. Legal scholars and critics point to past precedents and the War Powers Resolution as the key guideposts as some lawmakers move to curb further action in Iran.
PELOSI'S WAR POWERS FLIP-FLOP EXPOSED IN RESURFACED OBAMA-ERA CLIP CONTRADICTS TRUMP CRITICISM ON IRAN
The U.S. military launched joint strikes with Israel on Iran beginning Saturday without congressional approval. Trump administration officials said they provided congressional notification to the "Gang of Eight," a bipartisan group of top congressional intelligence leaders, ahead of the strikes, but Congress did not hold a vote to approve them.
Instead, the Trump administration has argued that the U.S. was facing an "imminent threat." Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. was not going to "sit there and absorb a blow" from Iran and that the operation was needed at this juncture**, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the operation** "is not a so-called regime change war" or a war like in Iraq that was open-ended, but a targeted mission born out of escalating threats.
"Our president has guts," Hegseth said during a press conference Monday. "Iran's stubborn and self-evident nuclear pursuits, their targeting of global shipping lanes and their swelling arsenal of ballistic missiles and killer drones were no longer tolerable risks. Iran was building powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions."
Democratic lawmakers, as well as some Republicans, have denounced the strikes as "illegal," arguing they did not obtain congressional approval first and drafting …
Trump’s Iran strikes get legal cover as scholars say Article II playbook spans Obama era and beyond
Who benefits from this decision?
President Donald Trump’s legal case for ordering strikes on Iran without prior congressional authorization is not novel, according to legal scholars, and instead tracks the modern Article II template that past presidential administrations have used to justify limited military operations abroad.
"Whether you agree or disagree with Obama or any of the other presidents who used military force, like in Haiti with 20,000 troops on the ground (in 1994 under the Clinton administration), this is what the founders anticipated when they divided the power," Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow and acting director of the Institute for Constitutional Government Cully Stimson told Fox News Digital in a phone interview Monday.
"They did not want to have what we had in Mother England, where the king made the decision alone," he said.
Trump’s Iran strikes are reigniting the long-running tug-of-war between Congress’ war powers and presidents’ Article II claims to act quickly against threats. Legal scholars and critics point to past precedents and the War Powers Resolution as the key guideposts as some lawmakers move to curb further action in Iran.
PELOSI'S WAR POWERS FLIP-FLOP EXPOSED IN RESURFACED OBAMA-ERA CLIP CONTRADICTS TRUMP CRITICISM ON IRAN
The U.S. military launched joint strikes with Israel on Iran beginning Saturday without congressional approval. Trump administration officials said they provided congressional notification to the "Gang of Eight," a bipartisan group of top congressional intelligence leaders, ahead of the strikes, but Congress did not hold a vote to approve them.
Instead, the Trump administration has argued that the U.S. was facing an "imminent threat." Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. was not going to "sit there and absorb a blow" from Iran and that the operation was needed at this juncture**, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the operation** "is not a so-called regime change war" or a war like in Iraq that was open-ended, but a targeted mission born out of escalating threats.
"Our president has guts," Hegseth said during a press conference Monday. "Iran's stubborn and self-evident nuclear pursuits, their targeting of global shipping lanes and their swelling arsenal of ballistic missiles and killer drones were no longer tolerable risks. Iran was building powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions."
Democratic lawmakers, as well as some Republicans, have denounced the strikes as "illegal," arguing they did not obtain congressional approval first and drafting …
