While the United States fights a war against Iran, Congress is losing its constitutional war against the president.
asserted
Congress → fight → president
The Senate on Thursday rejected another War Powers Resolution calling for an end to hostilities in Iran, failing 49-50.
asserted
Senate → reject → Iran
The House had voted 220-204 to pass the resolution, which was the third time it had voted to end the Iran war.
asserted
it → vote → war
But even if the Senate had passed it, it would not have mattered.
asserted
it → pass → it
This War Powers Resolution was a “concurrent resolution,” which would not even go to the president for his signature or veto, the “presentment” ordinarily required for legislation to have binding legal effect.
asserted
legislation → go → effect
Under the Supreme Court’s reasoning in INS v. Chadha, the ability of a concurrent resolution to legally compel President Donald Trump to end the war is highly doubtful.
asserted
ability → compel → war
The conventional understanding of modern war powers is that presidents have increasingly encroached on Congress’s authority to decide when America goes to war, aided and abetted by the Supreme Court.
asserted
America → encroach → Court
But the Iran war exposes a deeper problem: Congress has lost the political capacity to exercise much of the constitutional power it still possesses.
asserted
it → expose → power
Instead of assembling coalitions to overcome a presidential veto, lawmakers repeatedly resort to resolutions whose constitutional force has been doubtful for more than four decades.
asserted
force → assemble → decades
Congress cannot indefinitely remain in limbo between authorization and opposition.
asserted
Congress → remain → authorization
If majorities believe the war with Iran serves the national interest, they should authorize it and define its limits.
asserted
they → believe → limits
If they believe it should end, they should use their legislative and appropriations powers to try to end it.
asserted
they → believe → it
By doing neither, Congress is not merely losing power to the president.
asserted
Congress → do → president
It is helping surrender it.
asserted
It → help → it
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 provided that Congress could direct the president to remove American forces from unauthorized hostilities simply through a concurrent resolution, thereby preventing presidents from vetoing it.
uncertain
Congress → provide → it
Then came Chadha in 1983.
asserted
Chadha → come → 1983
The case had nothing to do with war, but the Supreme Court held that the Constitution’s separation-of-powers structure generally requires legislative action affecting legal rights outside Congress itself to satisfy the processes of bicameralism and “presentment” to the president.
asserted
structure → have → president
The Court never specifically struck down the War Powers Resolution’s concurrent-resolution mechanism, but its reasoning cast grave doubt on its constitutionality.
asserted
reasoning → strike → constitutionality
Congress responded that year by creating an alternative expedited procedure for bills and joint resolutions directing withdrawal, measures that satisfy presentment and can actually become law, passively acknowledging that binding the president requires Congress to confront the president.
asserted
binding → respond → president
Yet Congress keeps returning to the old constitutionally suspect mechanism.
asserted
Congress → keep → mechanism
In June, both houses adopted a concurrent resolution directing Trump to remove American forces from hostilities with Iran.
asserted
houses → adopt → Iran
Trump did not comply, and the war has continued.
asserted
war → comply → ?
A president can initiate hostilities without congressional authorization, yet if Congress subsequently orders the president to withdraw, and the president vetoes that legislation, Congress needs two-thirds of both houses to override him.
asserted
thirds → initiate → him
In practice, one-third of either chamber can therefore sustain a war Congress never affirmatively authorized.
asserted
Congress → sustain → war
It controls appropriations and ultimately can pass actual legislation requiring withdrawal.
asserted
It → control → withdrawal
The Constitution does not guarantee Congress an easy way to prevail against the president.
asserted
Constitution → guarantee → president
Binding alternatives have been proposed.
asserted
alternatives → bind → ?
In April, a joint resolution was introduced directing Trump to comply with the War Powers Resolution’s withdrawal requirements.
asserted
resolution → introduce → requirements
In May, a joint resolution was introduced to authorize the operation.
uncertain
resolution → introduce → operation
Unlike concurrent resolutions, either one could have become law.
uncertain
one → become → resolutions
But neither advanced beyond committee.
asserted
neither → advance → committee
Congress has instead repeatedly held floor votes around the constitutionally doubtful concurrent-resolution mechanism.
asserted
Congress → hold → mechanism
We should stop pretending that every expansion of presidential war power is merely happening to Congress.
asserted
expansion → stop → Congress
Presidents certainly have seized power and courts have restricted congressional tools.
asserted
courts → seize → tools
But Congress has also contributed to its own decline by becoming incapable of building a consensus around decisions of war and peace.
asserted
Congress → contribute → war
The Iraq War provides a useful contrast.
asserted
War → provide → contrast
In 2007, Congress passed legislation tying war funding to withdrawal requirements for American troops.
asserted
Congress → pass → troops
Former President George W. Bush vetoed it.
asserted
Bush → veto → it
The House attempted to override his veto and failed, 222-203.
asserted
House → attempt → veto
Congress subsequently passed another funding measure without the withdrawal timetable.
asserted
Congress → pass → timetable
…and 15 more, not listed.
The Aporia
