Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

War of *Whose* Choice?

by June 21, 2025
June 21, 2025
War of *Whose* Choice?

Gene Healy

At the start of this week, if you were “monitoring the situation” via President Trump’s Truth Social feed, you might have assumed the United States was already at war with Iran. On Monday (June 16), Trump demanded the immediate evacuation of Tehran; on Tuesday, he was calling for Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” and using the first-person plural to describe Israel’s war efforts: “We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran” and “We are not going to take him [i.e., Ayatollah Khameni] out (kill!), at least not for now.”

As things stand now, the president—possibly ticked off by a Wall Street Journal editorial?—has issued the Islamic Republic a temporary reprieve. “I may do it, I may not do it,” he told the press on Wednesday: “I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do.” Okay, then—do keep us posted.

All along, Trump and his administration have continued to insist that “he is the singular guiding hand for what will be occurring from this point forward.” Vice President J.D. Vance says the decision to go to war “ultimately belongs to the president.” In that sense, the Bush/​Trump face morph making the rounds is arguably unfair—to George W. Bush. The 43rd president made similar claims about unilateral power, but he ultimately got congressional authorization for his disastrous war of choice. 

Rep. Thomas Massie (R‑KY) has a different view on who gets to decide: 

“Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.”

Who’s right? Massie, obviously. Indeed, the whole point of lodging the bulk of the war powers with Congress was to ensure that “this system will not hurry us into war,” as Pennsylvania’s James Wilson explained in 1787, “it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man… to involve us in such distress, for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large.”

Absent congressional authorization, the president’s constitutional war powers are strictly defensive: the power to “repel sudden attacks,” per Madison’s notes from the Convention—not the power to launch them. There was broad consensus on that point among the Framers: “Every major figure from the founding era who commented on the matter said that the Constitution gave Congress the exclusive power to commit the nation to hostilities”; that included “strong advocates of the president’s prerogatives, such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton.” As Washington put it in 1793,

“The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.”

That’s how it was supposed to work—but it hasn’t worked that way for quite some time. What’s constitutional and what the president can get away with are two separate matters, unfortunately. If tomorrow, another lippy reporter needles the president about his “TACO” rep (viz. “Trump Always Chickens Out”), and the president decides it’s bunker-buster time, the military will obey his orders, and we’ll have to deal with the consequences.

Is there anything Congress can do to restrain the president? The few remaining institutionalists in the First Branch are determined to try. In the House, Rep. Massie, with Rep. Ro Khanna (D‑CA) introduced a “Bipartisan War Powers Resolution” under §5(c) of the 1973 War Powers Act; in the Senate, Tim Kaine (D‑VA) has put forward his resolution to halt further escalation. The operative clauses of each bill, in identical language, direct the president

“to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.”

I wish I could be more confident that these moves will succeed, but they’ve got a high bar to clear. In February 2020, after President Trump’s drone strike assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, Senator Kaine took the lead on a similar measure directing the president to terminate the use of US forces for hostilities against Iran. It passed 55–45 with eight GOP votes, but couldn’t make it past Trump’s veto.

The original 1973 War Powers Resolution relied in part on a “legislative veto” mechanism to restrain the president: under §5(c): when US forces are engaged in hostilities without congressional authorization, they “shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.” The Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha effectively neutered that congressional check, with the result that a president bent on war can now do as he pleases unless and until Congress can assemble a veto-proof supermajority to stop him.

With enough support, the efforts by Kaine, Massie, et al. could prove valuable, nonetheless, as a signal to the president of how far out on a limb he’s going if he enters this war unilaterally. But ultimately, taking a bite out of presidential warmaking requires a framework statute that, unlike the ‘73 War Powers Resolution, actually has teeth. The National Security Powers Act put forward by Senators Mike Lee (R‑UT), Bernie Sanders (I‑VT), and Chris Murphy (D‑CT) in 2021 took the right approach: linking enforcement to Congress’s power of the purse and automatically killing funding for warmaking.

Until then, contrary to the Framers’ design, the choice of war or peace is “in the power of a single man”—and a flighty, easily baitable, and rage-prone one at that. Ordinarily, I don’t put a lot of stock in what uberhawk John Bolton, Trump’s former National Security Adviser, has to say, but I figure he’s reliable on this point at least:

in his experience, Mr. Bolton said, Mr. Trump was “frantic and agitated” in national security crises. “He talks to a lot of people and he’s looking for somebody who will say the magic words…. He’ll hear something and he’ll decide, ‘That’s right, that’s what I believe.’ Which lasts until he has the next conversation.”

“The Room Where It Happens” is ultimately inside Trump’s head. So for now, we’re left doing #MAGA Kremlinology by following the White House visitor logs and the president’s social media feeds and hoping whoever talked to him last had prudence and good sense.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Israel says it killed Iranian commander who helped fund, arm Hamas
next post
Trump attacks Iran nuclear sites: Are our troops in danger from retaliatory strikes?

You may also like

The Supreme Court Should Save TikTok

January 7, 2025

Postal Banking Continues to Fail

June 16, 2025

The War on Drugs is Also a War...

April 1, 2024

David Boaz: Libertarian Superstar

June 7, 2024

Zenger at 290: The Jury’s Duty to Say...

August 4, 2025

Consumer Interests (Likely) To Prevail over Producer Interests...

June 11, 2024

Marijuana Should Be De-Scheduled, Not Re-Scheduled

August 30, 2023

How Primary Reform Stalled—and Why It’s Back

October 18, 2024

Menthol Tobacco Ban Appears Inevitable. Expect a Healthy...

October 17, 2023

A Case Study in Tax Credit Fraud and...

May 2, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • OnlyFans pays record £520m to Ukrainian-born owner as $8bn sale looms

      August 22, 2025
    • Government takes control of Sanjeev Gupta’s Rotherham steel plant to save 1,500 jobs

      August 22, 2025
    • TikTok isn’t enough to stop Gen Z from drifting to AOC. Trump must do 3 things next

      August 22, 2025
    • JCB warns of huge losses as new US tariffs hit British exports

      August 22, 2025
    • Zelenskyy seeks ‘strong reaction’ from US if Putin is not ready for bilateral meeting

      August 22, 2025
    • Trump administration wins Supreme Court fight to slash NIH medical research grants tied to DEI, LGBTQ studies

      August 22, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,854)
    • Investing (2,231)
    • Politics (16,458)
    • Stocks (3,228)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved