War and Executive Authority
War is, in many ways, an unfortunate reality, yet it can sometimes be necessary and justified, provided certain conditions are fulfilled. A just cause should underlie any conflict, with negotiation as the primary means of resolution. Striving for peace must include considering the interests of our adversaries. Moreover, there should be legitimate intentions, a reasonable chance of success, and a declaration from a recognized authority.
In light of these criteria, the war against Iran raises significant questions about its justification. However, regarding the matter of legitimate authority, it has become clear that the power to declare war now largely resides with the president.
This shift suggests that Congress no longer holds exclusive constitutional authority over war declarations, which feels unsettling. This conclusion emerges from observing how U.S. military operations have developed over decades, culminating in the most recent actions. Importantly, this isn’t a question of normative judgment; rather, it’s an examination of events alongside the public discourse surrounding them.
The current administration’s bold approach to initiating a major conflict without thorough consultation with Congress, and then acknowledging a subordinate role to that body, underscores this reality.
Looking back over the past 75 years, the U.S. has engaged in a multitude of military conflicts without formal declarations of war, with only sporadic instances of authorization for large-scale actions. The distinction between covert operations and overt military actions has often been ambiguous; many U.S. commitments since World War II have outstepped this line while remaining disconnected from larger constitutional discussions.
Some might point to past operations against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq as sufficiently below that threshold. Yet, it’s hard to maintain such an argument regarding Vietnam, Afghanistan, or the current situation in Iran.
It is worth acknowledging that many previous military engagements received parliamentary approval after significant debate, frequently accompanied by substantial public discussion. What Publius described in The Federalist as “a cool, deliberate sense of community” often resonated strongly with the public. Hence, one could argue that these powers, while not strictly aligning with the Constitution, have met its core requirements.
The ongoing war against Iran can thus be seen as a climax of the trend toward unilateral executive authority in military matters post-World War II. Since February, considerable military resources have been allocated to extensive offensive operations, which, when viewed collectively, represent legislative approval—yet without the usual deliberation from Congress or the public.
Debates concerning war and peace regarding Iran have been largely confined to the executive branch, sidelining Congress and even the American populace.
As the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have often been overshadowed by national laws and Supreme Court interpretations, it seems wise for Americans to recognize these shifts in our constitutional framework. It’s important to understand that the authority to engage in legitimate warfare has increasingly moved into the hands of the executive branch, and to adjust our constitutional understanding accordingly.
