An Unconstitutional Anti-War Resolution

“A rare defeat” for the Trump administration is the way the wires are describing the House’s vote Wednesday to end the war in Iran. The vote by four Republicans and all the Democrats in the lower chamber uses the War Powers Act to try to take the pressure off Iran as Tehran seeks to defeat America, Israel, and leading Arab countries. The Democrats will likely seek in the Senate a similar resolution that might, if passed, be sent to President Trump.Our own long-held view, and that of Mr. Trump, is that the War Powers Resolution under which the solons are acting is unconstitutional. It curbs war powers that were granted to the president in the Constitution. It was passed in 1973, after our defeat in Vietnam and over president Nixon’s veto. Our defeat in Vietnam was further precipitated by votes in Congress in 1974 and 1975 to cut off support for our longtime allies in Southeast Asia.What is so unconstitutional in the War Powers Act is its enacting against the president requirements that are not in the Constitution itself. The Constitution does grant important war powers to Congress, but the Constitution doesn’t list conditions attempting to curtail the powers of the commander in chief. The War Powers Act, in essence, is a power grab by a Congress that upsets the balance established by the Framers and ratified by the people.In these columns, we often quote Alexander Hamilton. “The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite,” Hamilton asserted in 23 Federalist, “and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed.” The War Powers law of 1973 upends that constitutional balance, a point Nixon grasped, and spoke about eloquently in his veto message of 1973.Then again, too, is the problem that the War Powers Act — or War Powers Resolution, as it’s often called — applies to only one side. It doesn’t prohibit our enemies from doing anything, including attacking us and, in Israel, our ally in the Middle East. It doesn’t require our enemies to come back to consult with Congress after 60 days at war. No, the War Powers Act is calculated to restrict the actions of only one side in the conflict.We’d like to think that these points will come into sharper relief with each passing week in this war. It’s not clear to us that the Senate will pass the measure that just cleared the House by a scant majority. Our own view is that if the Senate does take it up, it would be logical for it to also take the time to review the question of the war powers act’s constitutionality. In some ways, that’s what the Senate is for.If the Senate does pass a resolution akin to what just cleared the House, or if the House ends up passing a similar measure that is brewing in the upper chamber, it could, depending on its form, go to the President for his signature. If so, we’d like to think that Mr. Trump would use the veto, which would make the resolution the House just passed a dead letter unless both houses of Congress can muster a two-thirds majority to override the commander in chief.It’s not clear that the opponents of the Iran conflict have that level of support on Capitol Hill. Yet the more pressing concern for the president, and for America’s war effort, may be in Congress wielding one of its duly constitutional powers on this head, by exercising its power of the purse. The solons have already expressed doubts about authorizing additional expenditures to cover the cost of the war. This will prove an issue to watch in the weeks to come.Already, though, the votes against the president at a time when America is at war can best be seen as emboldening our enemies abroad. One clear-eyed appraisal of this emerged from a Texas Republican, Congressman Michael McCaul. “It really undermines the president’s leverage and ability to negotiate,” he said. “Because now Iran is going to see this and think that the United States Congress, you know, American people don’t support it.”

An Unconstitutional Anti-War Resolution

More from the New York Sun

‘60 Minutes’ Correspondent Scott Pelley Fired One Day After Criticizing His Bosses: Will The Network Be Forced To Pay Out His Contract?

Trump Administration Cites Forced Labor For New Tariffs on Dozens of Countries

‘Jerome’ Poignantly Highlights Schemers and Dreamers in the American West

More from the New York Sun

‘60 Minutes’ Correspondent Scott Pelley Fired One Day After Criticizing His Bosses: Will The Network Be Forced To Pay Out His Contract?

Trump Administration Cites Forced Labor For New Tariffs on Dozens of Countries

‘Jerome’ Poignantly Highlights Schemers and Dreamers in the American West

Ukraine Moves Battle Lines With Its Mid-Range Drones

‘You’re On’: Senators Gillibrand and Cruz Bet on the NBA Finals

CMS To Make GLP-1s Eligible to Medicare Patients for $50 a Month

Democrats Get Their Dream Scenario in California with Becerra and Hilton Likely Headed to the Runoff

Social Mobility 101