Context:

The U.S. Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the President, with Congress holding the authority to declare war and the President serving as Commander in Chief. This division has historically led to conflicts over military engagements, as seen with President Trump's decision to strike Iran's nuclear sites without congressional approval, sparking criticism from lawmakers. The Constitution requires legislative approval for military actions, often fulfilled through authorizations for the use of military force, rather than formal war declarations. Post-World War II, rapid technological advancements and global institutions like the UN have shifted military engagement discussions from formal declarations to 'use of force' justifications. Despite the intent of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to ensure joint decision-making in military actions, presidents have frequently bypassed its requirements, prompting ongoing debate about the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.

Dive Deeper:

• The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, while the President is designated as Commander in Chief, leading to historical disputes over military authority. This has been highlighted by President Trump's unilateral decision to strike Iran's nuclear sites, criticized for bypassing Congress.

• Senators Mike Kelly and Tim Kaine criticized the President's actions, emphasizing the constitutional requirement for congressional approval before engaging in offensive military actions, as intended by the Constitution's framers.

• The Constitution does not mandate a formal declaration of war but requires legislative approval, which can be achieved through authorizations for the use of military force, a practice that has been more common post-World War II due to technological and institutional changes.

• The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to rebalance military decision-making power between Congress and the President, requiring notification to Congress within 48 hours of military deployment and limiting engagements to 60 days without congressional authorization.

• Despite its intentions, the War Powers Resolution has often been ignored or circumvented by presidents, who have continued military actions without full compliance, leading to debates about its effectiveness in ensuring constitutional adherence.

• Legal experts argue that the Constitution prohibits the President from initiating force against nations like Iran without an attack on the U.S. or an imminent threat, spotlighting the ongoing tension between executive action and legislative oversight.

• The current administration claims compliance with the War Powers Resolution, maintaining that actions are consistent with constitutional requirements, though critics argue that mere notifications do not suffice for true congressional consultation.