Trump Administration Predictions (4 Viewers)

[Steve R.]

Evidently you did not watch the video clip. Levin and Yoo discussed this very point. The president has the authority to initiate unilateral military action.

 

[RogerCooper]

Where in the Constitution does the President have the authority initiate military action? Are you saying that the authority of the Congress is nominal. Cite the Constitution, not Fox News videos.

A Fox News video from a professional apologist for anything done by a Republican President. John Yoo was the guy who said that torture was legal (contrary to the actual statute). Cite the actual Constitution, not John Yoo.

 

[Steve R.]

As is usual, any evidence provided that you don't approve of, is rejected. That makes it difficult to have a rationale conversation. You seem to believe that you are the only person knowledgeable enough concerning the Constitution to "school" this forum. You may want to reconsider that one sided viewpoint as being closed minded.

 

[NauticalGent]

There is no explicit Constitutional authority. The POTUS's authority to initiate military action comes from statutory authority, I knew this in principal only so I asked Chatty to write it for me:

1. Constitutional Authority​

• Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution names the President as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces:
  
  

  “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

This grants the President the authority to direct military forces in operations and respond quickly to threats or emergencies.

However, only Congress has the power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, which also grants it powers to:

• Raise and support armies
• Provide and maintain a navy
• Make rules for the military
• Call forth the militia

This creates a shared war power between the branches.

---

2. Statutory Authority​

Congress has passed laws that either grant or limit the President’s military powers:

• War Powers Resolution of 1973:
  
  • Requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing armed forces into hostilities.
  • Limits military engagement without Congressional approval to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period.
  • Aimed to check Presidential power after Vietnam.
• Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs):
  
  • These are Congressional acts that authorize specific military actions, such as:
    
    • 2001 AUMF (in response to 9/11): Authorized force against those responsible for the attacks.
    • 2002 AUMF: Authorized force against Iraq.

Presidents have sometimes used these AUMFs as broad justification for military operations beyond their original scope, which is a matter of legal and political debate.

---

3. Practice vs. Principle​

In practice, Presidents have often initiated military action without a formal declaration of war, citing:

• National defense
• International obligations
• Emergency circumstances

Examples include:

• Korea (1950)
• Vietnam (initially)
• Libya (2011)
• Syria (various strikes)

Congress may support, object, or fund these actions after the fact, but there's ongoing tension over where the line of authority lies.

 

[RogerCooper]

As is usual, any evidence provided that you don't approve of, is rejected. That makes it difficult to have a rationale conversation. You seem to believe that you are the only person knowledgeable enough concerning the Constitution to "school" this forum. You may want to reconsider that one sided viewpoint as being closed minded.

I always cite the actual Constitution or the actual statute, not the Fox New summary. I suggest you do the same.

I recall reading a WSJ piece by John Yoo where he claimed that the Torture Memos did not reflect his point of view, but he was simply writing what was requested of him.

 

[Steve R.]

I always cite the actual Constitution or the actual statute, not the Fox New summary. I suggest you do the same.

Your "citations" contain personal subjective interpretations. The citations @NauticalGent above provide a much better understanding. Again, instead of condemning viewpoints that you disagree with, such as the Fox video, you should view them to gain a better understanding. You can't gain a better understanding by only accepting one line of (incorrect) reasoning.

 

[Isaac]

The Constitution assigns the power to declare war to the Congress. The President has no authority to initiate military action. I am going to quote Abraham Lincoln on this.

Not so sure about that. The Constitution is pretty smart - when the authors wanted to be precise, or more sweeping, they were more precise, or more sweeping. The things they left vague or pinpoint, they probably did for a reason.

Congress has the power to declare war. Great. Nobody has declared war on Iran and nobody, probably, ever will.

In fact, the purpose of the strikes was to avoid broad war.

 

[Isaac]

The Constitution assigns the power to declare war to the Congress. The President has no authority to initiate military action

The first statement is a fact, the second statement is your guess/wish/interpretation and not a fact

 

[Isaac]

This grants the President the authority to direct military forces in operations and respond quickly to threats or emergencies

Bingo, you win $25.

 

[Isaac]

Cite the actual Constitution, not John Yoo

You're very confused my friend. It's quite normal to cite legal authorities, experts, when arguing a legal point, and in fact, a wise person will be humble enough to do so. Unless you yourself are a Constitutional lawyer with a degree of success and experience, the smartest thing you can do will be to cite those who are, and the most foolish thing you can do will be to blindly quote the Constitution without the context of interpretation over time that colors the matter.

You claim to be an originalist/textualist type of person, but you're denying that kind of application on this matter.
If you want to be literal, the Constitution clearly says Congress has the power to declare war, and Trump didn't declare war.
It seems you're a textualist when it suits your argument, and a "living document" kinda guy when that suits it better.

Also, ponder this:
Congress declares war on country1. President begins military actions. Along the way, various countries get involved, maybe 5 or more. Some days the President is commanding missiles into country1's airspace; other days the President commands missiles into country2's or country3's airspace. On those latter days, has he done something illegal? He has to keep going back to Congress to "declare war" on any country he engages, right?

 

[RogerCooper]

Not so sure about that. The Constitution is pretty smart - when the authors wanted to be precise, or more sweeping, they were more precise, or more sweeping. The things they left vague or pinpoint, they probably did for a reason.

Congress has the power to declare war. Great. Nobody has declared war on Iran and nobody, probably, ever will.

In fact, the purpose of the strikes was to avoid broad war.

Your interpretation reduces the Congressional authority to being purely nominal.

You're very confused my friend. It's quite normal to cite legal authorities, experts, when arguing a legal point, and in fact, a wise person will be humble enough to do so. Unless you yourself are a Constitutional lawyer with a degree of success and experience, the smartest thing you can do will be to cite those who are, and the most foolish thing you can do will be to blindly quote the Constitution without the context of interpretation over time that colors the matter.

You claim to be an originalist/textualist type of person, but you're denying that kind of application on this matter.
If you want to be literal, the Constitution clearly says Congress has the power to declare war, and Trump didn't declare war.
It seems you're a textualist when it suits your argument, and a "living document" kinda guy when that suits it better.

Also, ponder this:
Congress declares war on country1. President begins military actions. Along the way, various countries get involved, maybe 5 or more. Some days the President is commanding missiles into country1's airspace; other days the President commands missiles into country2's or country3's airspace. On those latter days, has he done something illegal? He has to keep going back to Congress to "declare war" on any country he engages, right?

When Congress acts, it can grant pretty broad authority, as it did with the 2001 AUMF and give the President some discretion as with the 2003 AUMF. It already has granted narrow authority for military action under the War Powers Act.

Trump couldn't get an AUMF for Iran because a majority of the Congress and the voters oppose involving the US in Netanyahu's war against Iran.

 

[AccessBlaster]

When their guy bombs, it’s bold leadership, when the other guy does it, it’s a constitutional crisis. It’s less about principle, more about politics.

 

[NauticalGent]

Congress has the power to declare war. Great. Nobody has declared war on Iran and nobody, probably, ever will.

In fact, the purpose of the strikes was to avoid broad war.

I'm a little bit of a cynic on that, but what do I know?

 

[AccessBlaster]

I'm a little bit of a cynic on that, but what do I know?

 

[Isaac]

When Congress acts, it can grant pretty broad authority

And yet the Constitution does not require them to act in order to Grant any and all authorities relating to military action, it only requires it for an official declaration of war. Your assumption is that that includes all initial military actions

 

[Isaac]

majority of the Congress and the voters oppose involving

I've actually been surprised at the opposite- bipartisan support and praise coming from both sides of the aisle for Trump's actions. I think personally that the congressmen are thankful that they were not subjected to the political dangers of having to vote yes or no on it. Most people seem to be glad it's done

 

[Pat Hartman]

The Constitution assigns the power to declare war to the Congress.

The declaration of war is a political state not a kinetic one. A declaration of war also means that you are going to destroy the enemy to achieve your goals. Do you think we should destroy Iran? Technically, they have been waging war on us through proxies for 50 years and we have every right to fight back. The lives lost have been real but the threat to the homeland was remote. The state of their ballistic missiles and nuclear program raised the threat level to one that had to be dealt with since their "Death to America" threat has always been real. Until now, it was mostly just words. Should we have waited until Iran nuked Israel? How about waiting until they nuked some US city?

I ask why this type of action didn't bother you when your favorite president from the last 40 years just took some similar action and didn't seek a formal declaration of war?

Trump did talk to members of congress regarding the action against Iran. No Democrats were consulted because none of them can be trusted to not leak military information to the enemy. Such a leak would have put the entire mission in jeopardy.

Congress does have the power to defund the military. It's hard to fight a forever war like those your favorite presidents since the end of WWII have involved us in without money.

The attack on the Iranian nuclear sites was targeted and specific and designed to end a threat, not regime change or start a forever war. Iran was given ample opportunity to come to the table and stop threatening us. They chose to continue their threats which are not idle and so the President needed to take action to mitigate the threat BEFORE Iran carried out its threat to destroy us.

Either Obama or Biden could have solved this problem years ago. Instead they gave money to the Mullahs and removed all the sanctions Trump put in place to limit the amount of money Iran had to support the terrorist activities of its proxies.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Trump couldn't get an AUMF for Iran because a majority of the Congress and the voters oppose involving the US in Netanyahu's war against Iran.

The threats of "Death to America" alongside the "Death to Israel" threats make Iran our declared enemy. They declared the war, not us and they fully intend to carry out their threat. They have mostly used proxies to keep their hands clean but they can be credited directly killing at least 600 of our military people since the Mullahs coup succeeded in 1979 to overthrow the Shah

Trump has the obligation as President to keep us safe from all enemies foreign and domestic. The state of Iran's ballistic and nuclear programs constituted a threat. Trump gave them a pathway to peace. They did not negotiate in good faith. Trump gave them an ultimatum. They gave him the finger so he gave it right pack at them. Well done by all. A very impressive operation carried out perfectly. Mostly because the Dems didn't have the information with which they could warn Iran ahead of time.

 

[Isaac]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/us/politics/bondi-trump-abrego-garcia.html

I was always suspicious of that portion of the evidence against him which relied heavily on traffic stops, and recorded instances where he was found driving a car with a gazillion undocumented Hispanics inside. It was at that point that I wanted to almost elbow @Thales750 and say "Now whoever wrote that has truly never seen construction workers depart or arrive, huh?!" ---- as packing 15 Mexicans in a Nissan Versa and heading to or from work is the most common thing in the world. (the gov loved these stories as they thought it was evidence that he was trafficking humans).

Additionally, if you know anything about these less-fortunate countries, (I'll use Mexico because that's the one I'm very intimately familiar with) - you would know that over-packing a vehicle with occupants is the most common thing in the world. I am seen as a stodgy, party pooper when I insist that my car only contain occupants equal or less than the # of seatbelts, when driving in Mexico. Several times I've been headed back from my inlaw's home back UP to El Paso, with a regular car and 4 people already in there, and people look at me with confusion when I politely decline their request to bring them and their 3 other family members! Seriously! The trunk is not out of the question. (ok, I made that one up).

Thus, Abrego Garcia's "story" that he was driving to or from a construction site is actually much more plausible than that he was trafficking people....based on whoever is writing those articles I'd say they know nothing about poorer hispanic countries nor construction.

 

[Pat Hartman]

when I insist that my car only contain occupants equal or less than the # of seatbelts,

I grew up not far from the naval base in Groton so eventually I discovered sailors. At the time, I was 19 and owned a brand new Austin Healy Sprite. A very tiny 2-seater if you are not familiar with the car. I was going to a party on the base with my boyfriend and I picked him up at the barracks and ended up with four more of his shipmates along for the ride. One on my boyfriends lap, two curled up on the shelf behind the seats and one on the gear shift. I had to settle on second gear for obvious reasons. At least the gearing was such that I could ignore 1st gear and just stay in 2nd even when I had to stop.