Trump’s Contemptible War Powers Veto

Originally appeared at The American Conservative.

The president once again showed his contempt for the Constitution with his veto of another war powers resolution yesterday:

President Trump vetoed a Senate resolution on Wednesday that would have required him to seek congressional authorization before taking military action against Iran, rejecting a rare effort by the chamber to curb his authority and reasserting broad power to use military force.

In a statement released by the White House, Mr. Trump portrayed the measure as not only an encroachment on his presidential powers but also a personal political attack.

“This was a very insulting resolution, introduced by Democrats as part of a strategy to win an election on November 3 by dividing the Republican Party,” the president said. “The few Republicans who voted for it played right into their hands.”

The president talks about Congress’ assertion of its constitutional authority as if they were guilty of lèse-majesté. Americans have allowed presidents to wage illegal wars so often and for so long that it was probably just a matter of time before one of them took for granted that his war powers were effectively unlimited. A president who didn’t want to be able to start a war on his own would have no objection to the resolution passed by Congress. The resolution was a bipartisan one, and it was introduced to prevent the president from taking it upon himself to start a war with Iran without Congressional approval. The fact that he takes offense at this resolution reflects both his absurdly absolutist ideas about the powers of the presidency and his willingness to order illegal military action. The illegal assassination that the president ordered at the start of the year was not the first time that Trump has trampled on the Constitution to launch illegal attacks on other governments, and as long as he is in office it won’t be the last. His previous veto of the antiwar resolution on Yemen already proved that he had no respect for Congress’ role in matters of war, and the latest veto confirms it.

The president’s statement makes a number of false claims, including an assertion that the illegal assassination of Soleimani was covered by the 2002 Iraq war authorization. There is no honest reading of that resolution that supports this interpretation. The resolution reaffirms that the president does not have the authority to initiate hostilities without Congressional authorization, and Trump completely rejects that fundamental constitutional principle:

In his statement, Mr. Trump argued that Congress had overstepped its bounds, saying that the resolution “implies that the president’s constitutional authority to use military force is limited to defense of the United States and its forces against imminent attack.”

“That is incorrect,” he added.

Trump goes beyond this to claim that the president is essentially free to wage preventive war whenever he thinks it necessary:

We live in a hostile world of evolving threats, and the Constitution recognizes that the President must be able to anticipate our adversaries’ next moves and take swift and decisive action in response. That’s what I did!

Except to protect against an imminent attack, taking “anticipatory” military action is illegal. It is not only a violation of the U.N. Charter, but it also represents an egregious power grab by the executive at the expense of the people’s representatives. Trump would like to be able to order illegal attacks and then present Congress with a fait accompli. That is an attack on our form of government and an insult to every American who honors the Constitution.

It shouldn’t surprise us that he has the gall to accuse Congress of overreaching when they try to rein in his constitutional violations. Trump spits on the Constitution with the attack he ordered back in January, and he spits on it again with his veto.

Daniel Larison is a senior editor at The American Conservative, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter. This article is reprinted from The American Conservative with permission.

11 thoughts on “Trump’s Contemptible War Powers Veto”

  1. Well, trump has offered no surprises here. His 2o16 campaign was bloated with gingo babble. The disappointment is the flaccid gop congress, whom abandoned conservatism decades ago.

  2. Why doesn’t congress take this to the supreme court? How can the “president” divest congress of its constitutional war powers by way of a veto? Isn’t this why we have a judicial branch? An illegal war with Iran could easily become WW3. If congress doesn’t pursue this in court I have to believe it’s all just disingenuous posturing.

    1. What is the “this” that they would take to SCOTUS?

      They passed a piece of legislation. The president has veto power over legislation. There’s nothing to take to court.

      The thing to take to court is the notion that they would NEED to pass legislation to stop the executive from going to war any time he pleases.

      1. Simple: the essence of the “this” is that legislation which asserts congress’ express war powers is not subject to presidential veto. How do you take a “notion” to court?
        I understand what you’re getting at but this particular set of circumstances may be a “cause of action” which if properly framed may put the bigger issue of unconstitutional presidential war-making before the court.

        1. ” legislation which asserts congress’ express war powers is not subject to presidential veto”

          Hmm … the magical “some legislation is not subject to veto” portion seems to have been torn out of my copy of the Constitution. Must have been the dog or something.

          There’s no need to pass legislation to tell the president he can’t do something that it’s already illegal for him to do. When he does illegal things, the remedies are to:

          1) Go to court to block his underlings from carrying out his orders; and

          2) Impeach and remove him.

          1. Let me start with your last statement:

            “There’s no need to pass legislation to tell the president he can’t do something that it’s already illegal for him to do. When he does illegal things, the remedies are to:
            1) Go to court to block his underlings from carrying out his orders; and
            2) Impeach and remove him.”

            First, that they didn’t impeach and remove him when they had the chance proves my point, i.e., that this legislation is just disingenuous posturing. The impeachment charges against him could’ve included his war crimes in Syria but they conspicuously didn’t – thus proving that it was all political theater. So you apparently agree with me on that point? If so the rest of our apparent disagreement is academic.

            Second; seriously? Once he starts WW3 and the missiles are flying, it’ll be too late. There will obviously be no time to “go to court to block” anybody from doing anything once his loyal order-followers start pushing buttons, right?

            “Hmm … the magical ‘some legislation is not subject to veto’ portion seems to have been torn out of my copy of the Constitution. Must have been the dog or something.”

            (Now that you mention it, my copy of the constitution must be wrong too since according to it, I have the right to keep and bear arms, for example. What a joke)!

            So you’re going to pretend that the constitution still means what the Founders and Framers intended it to mean? That our rulers still support and defend it as per their oaths of office? Aw c’mon, cut the disingenuous pedantry.

            The problem we find ourselves in today is that so many unconstitutional “things” have happened that we’re now in a legal/constitutional gray area. How do we get back to where we should be after so many years of trashing the constitution?

            My point was that a legal argument can be made that this legislation is not “typical” legislation and cannot be vetoed. For example, according to Sec. 2. (a) of the War Powers Act of 1973:

            “It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of BOTH the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.”

            And according to Sec. 5C of the war powers act:

            “Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.”

            So according to the War Power Act, congress has the authority – under the circumstances – to force the removal of U.S. troops from the Persian Gulf by concurrent resolution.

            In this case, for some reason, Congress passed not a “concurrent resolution” but a “joint resolution” which generally requites a presidential signature. But if a concurrent resolution – which does not require a presidential signature – is enough to force the president to remove the troops from the Persian Gulf under the War Powers Act, then why should he be able to veto the joint resolution? It doesn’t make sense.

          2. “So you’re going to pretend that the constitution still means what the Founders and Framers intended it to mean?”

            Only to the extent that they were counter-revolutionaries and that it was their instrument of re-imposing aristocratic rule minus an inconvenient foreign king.

            “[W]hether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” — Lysander Spooner

      2. So in a sense they shot themselves in the foot. Instead of reminding (informing)the President of his limits as President, they reinforced the idea that he really has these powers he presumed every past President had (it sure looks like it to the average Joe and the rest of us, notwithstanding the check put on Obama over Syria in 2013) by passing legislation to impose the limits they knew he had in theory but couldn’t be trusted to respect. Better late than never, but seemingly a tactical misstep. Now he feels even more fully empowered. Don’t forget he spoke idly about dismissing both Houses not too long ago.

        1. I don’t believe anything will change, unless, the bogus war on terror authorization is tossed.

Comments are closed.