AOC said bombing Iran was unconstitutional. Is she right?

[berg80]

Examining Whether Trump Had the Constitutional Authority to Attack Iran​

In the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s decision to bomb three of Iran’s nuclear facilities, numerous Democrats claimed the president’s actions were unconstitutional and a violation of the War Powers Resolution.

It is a contentious and hotly debated issue not only in Congress but also in academia. Constitutional experts told us those who are claiming the president’s decision was unconstitutional may be correct according to an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. But Congresses over the last several decades have allowed presidents some latitude to engage militarily without prior consent from lawmakers.

“A lot of people over the next few days are going to argue with confidence that President Trump violated, or didn’t violate, the Constitution when he bombed Iran over the weekend without congressional authorization,” Jack Landman Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School and nonresident senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote in a June 23 op-ed headlined, “Was the Iran Strike Constitutional?”

“You might think that the Constitution would provide a clear answer to such a momentous question. But it doesn’t,” Goldsmith wrote.

Although the military hostilities involving Iran, Israel and the U.S. have ended, numerous Democrats have continued to press the issue, and have proposed legislation to try to rein in the president’s military reach.

Examining Whether Trump Had the Constitutional Authority to Attack Iran - FactCheck.org

In the aftermath of President Donald Trump's decision to bomb three of Iran's nuclear facilities, numerous Democrats claimed the president's actions were unconstitutional and a violation of the War Powers Resolution. It is a contentious and hotly debated issue not only in Congress but also in...

www.factcheck.org

IMO, ambiguity over such a momentous question needs to be resolved.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress holds the power “To declare War.” Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the president as the commander in chief of the armed forces. So, at what point and under what circumstances would the president need congressional approval before launching military activity?

“I think this is a tough question because practice has strayed so far from the text and original understanding of the Constitution,” Kermit Roosevelt, a professor and constitutional expert at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, told us via email.

Repub Reps Khanna and Massie have introduced a resolution on the specific matter of attacks on Iran. Should it be expanded to give Congress sign off authority on any strike? How much would that hamper a prez's ability to respond quickly if military action were called for?

 

[pknopp]

Sadly Congress has long shirked it's duty in the desire to not actually be held accountable for anything.

They have gave presidents a free pass to undertake the "War on Terror". I actually blame the cowardly House and Senate for not have rescinded this long ago.

Democrats talked of passing something to have made it once again unconstitutional. If the method wasn't already in place they wouldn't have had to do this.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Examining Whether Trump Had the Constitutional Authority to Attack Iran​

In the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s decision to bomb three of Iran’s nuclear facilities, numerous Democrats claimed the president’s actions were unconstitutional and a violation of the War Powers Resolution.

It is a contentious and hotly debated issue not only in Congress but also in academia. Constitutional experts told us those who are claiming the president’s decision was unconstitutional may be correct according to an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. But Congresses over the last several decades have allowed presidents some latitude to engage militarily without prior consent from lawmakers.

“A lot of people over the next few days are going to argue with confidence that President Trump violated, or didn’t violate, the Constitution when he bombed Iran over the weekend without congressional authorization,” Jack Landman Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School and nonresident senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote in a June 23 op-ed headlined, “Was the Iran Strike Constitutional?”

“You might think that the Constitution would provide a clear answer to such a momentous question. But it doesn’t,” Goldsmith wrote.

Although the military hostilities involving Iran, Israel and the U.S. have ended, numerous Democrats have continued to press the issue, and have proposed legislation to try to rein in the president’s military reach.

Examining Whether Trump Had the Constitutional Authority to Attack Iran - FactCheck.org

In the aftermath of President Donald Trump's decision to bomb three of Iran's nuclear facilities, numerous Democrats claimed the president's actions were unconstitutional and a violation of the War Powers Resolution. It is a contentious and hotly debated issue not only in Congress but also in...

www.factcheck.org

IMO, ambiguity over such a momentous question needs to be resolved.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress holds the power “To declare War.” Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the president as the commander in chief of the armed forces. So, at what point and under what circumstances would the president need congressional approval before launching military activity?

“I think this is a tough question because practice has strayed so far from the text and original understanding of the Constitution,” Kermit Roosevelt, a professor and constitutional expert at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, told us via email.

Repub Reps Khanna and Massie have introduced a resolution on the specific matter of attacks on Iran. Should it be expanded to give Congress sign off authority on any strike? How much would that hamper a prez's ability to respond quickly if military action were called for?

No. The President wasn't declaring war, but acting as the Commander-in-Chief of all US Armed forces and reacting to what he considers a threat to national security. AOC is a complete dumbass and has no idea what the Constitution says.

 

[mudwhistle]

Examining Whether Trump Had the Constitutional Authority to Attack Iran​

In the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s decision to bomb three of Iran’s nuclear facilities, numerous Democrats claimed the president’s actions were unconstitutional and a violation of the War Powers Resolution.

It is a contentious and hotly debated issue not only in Congress but also in academia. Constitutional experts told us those who are claiming the president’s decision was unconstitutional may be correct according to an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. But Congresses over the last several decades have allowed presidents some latitude to engage militarily without prior consent from lawmakers.

“A lot of people over the next few days are going to argue with confidence that President Trump violated, or didn’t violate, the Constitution when he bombed Iran over the weekend without congressional authorization,” Jack Landman Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School and nonresident senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote in a June 23 op-ed headlined, “Was the Iran Strike Constitutional?”

“You might think that the Constitution would provide a clear answer to such a momentous question. But it doesn’t,” Goldsmith wrote.

Although the military hostilities involving Iran, Israel and the U.S. have ended, numerous Democrats have continued to press the issue, and have proposed legislation to try to rein in the president’s military reach.

Examining Whether Trump Had the Constitutional Authority to Attack Iran - FactCheck.org

In the aftermath of President Donald Trump's decision to bomb three of Iran's nuclear facilities, numerous Democrats claimed the president's actions were unconstitutional and a violation of the War Powers Resolution. It is a contentious and hotly debated issue not only in Congress but also in...

www.factcheck.org

IMO, ambiguity over such a momentous question needs to be resolved.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress holds the power “To declare War.” Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the president as the commander in chief of the armed forces. So, at what point and under what circumstances would the president need congressional approval before launching military activity?

“I think this is a tough question because practice has strayed so far from the text and original understanding of the Constitution,” Kermit Roosevelt, a professor and constitutional expert at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, told us via email.

Repub Reps Khanna and Massie have introduced a resolution on the specific matter of attacks on Iran. Should it be expanded to give Congress sign off authority on any strike? How much would that hamper a prez's ability to respond quickly if military action were called for?

AOC is never right.

Matter of fact, her voters support her because she's an agent of chaos.

They don't want her to actually be right or come up with solutions.

 

[pknopp]

No. The President wasn't declaring war, but acting as the Commander-in-Chief of all US Armed forces and reacting to what he considers a threat to national security. AOC is a complete dumbass and has no idea what the Constitution says.

There was no threat to our national security.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

There was no threat to our national security.

The largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world with weapons grade nuclear material is not a threat ? Are you mental ?

In May 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed Iran held a stockpile of 408.6 kg of uranium enriched to 60%.

A 60% enrichment level requires more material to build a bomb than weapons-grade uranium, but the quantity reported by the IAEA—over 400 kg—is far beyond the threshold. According to IAEA data, just 42 kg of uranium enriched to that level is enough to produce a nuclear weapon.



‘There Is Enough Material There for a Bomb’ Says Nuclear Expert After Strikes - The Media Line

 

[berg80]

No. The President wasn't declaring war, but acting as the Commander-in-Chief of all US Armed forces and reacting to what he considers a threat to national security. AOC is a complete dumbass and has no idea what the Constitution says.

My bet is AOC is much more familiar with the Constitution than the guy who never reads anything and eschews his PDB's. But the question of where presidential authority ends and Congress's begins doesn't have a clear answer. It needs one.

 

[berg80]

The largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world with weapons grade nuclear material is not a threat ? Are you mental ?

In May 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed Iran held a stockpile of 408.6 kg of uranium enriched to 60%.

A 60% enrichment level requires more material to build a bomb than weapons-grade uranium, but the quantity reported by the IAEA—over 400 kg—is far beyond the threshold. According to IAEA data, just 42 kg of uranium enriched to that level is enough to produce a nuclear weapon.



‘There Is Enough Material There for a Bomb’ Says Nuclear Expert After Strikes - The Media Line

From AI.......
No, weapons-grade uranium alone is not enough to make a nuclear bomb, according to DW.

To construct a nuclear weapon requires several complex components and a great deal of technical expertise. Weapon-grade uranium is defined as uranium enriched to 90 percent or more of the U-235 isotope. While this level of enrichment is crucial for creating a nuclear explosion, it's only one part of the complex process of building a functional nuclear weapon.

 

[pknopp]

The largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world with weapons grade nuclear material is not a threat ? Are you mental ?

In May 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed Iran held a stockpile of 408.6 kg of uranium enriched to 60%.

A 60% enrichment level requires more material to build a bomb than weapons-grade uranium, but the quantity reported by the IAEA—over 400 kg—is far beyond the threshold. According to IAEA data, just 42 kg of uranium enriched to that level is enough to produce a nuclear weapon.



‘There Is Enough Material There for a Bomb’ Says Nuclear Expert After Strikes - The Media Line

Iran wasn't about to attack the U.S. If it had it would completely cease to exist. They aren't about to do that.

Did you ever find Iraqs WMD?

 

[SeaMajor7]

AOC says a lot of dumb shit like that.
But here's Stalinberg citing her as a scholar of wisdom.
Can't make this shit up, damn.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

My bet is AOC is much more familiar with the Constitution than the guy who never reads anything and eschews his PDB's. But the question of where presidential authority ends and Congress's begins doesn't have a clear answer. It needs one.

I read more shit in a week than any of you morons read in a year,
and the Constitution is clear Congress declares war, but the President is the Commander-in-Chief.

You don't think he has the authority to bomb threats because it's Trump. I'm not a partisan hack like you even if Biden's handlers had taken the initiative and bomb Iran's nuclear ambitions I would have supported it.

 

[pknopp]

I read more shit in a week than any of you morons read in a year,
and the Constitution is clear Congress declares war, but the President is the Commander-in-Chief.

You don't think he has the authority to bomb threats because it's Trump. I'm not a partisan hack like you even if Biden's handlers had taken the initiative and bomb Iran's nuclear ambitions I would have supported it.

Iran was no threat to the US.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Iran wasn't about to attack the U.S. If it had it would completely cease to exist. They aren't about to do that.

Did you ever find Iraqs WMD?

Largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world moron. Iran doesn't have to attck anyone they have a shit ton of proxies for that.

I never looked for Iraq's WMD's that likely found their way to Syria

Syria's Chemical Weapons Came From Saddam's Iraq

War On Terror: As the regime of Bashar Assad disintegrates, the security of his chemical arsenal is in jeopardy. The No. 2 general in Saddam Hussein's air force says they... Read More

www.investors.com

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Iran was no threat to the US.

MSN

 

[pknopp]

Largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world moron. Iran doesn't have to attck anyone they have a shit ton of proxies for that.

I never looked for Iraq's WMD's that likely found their way to Syria

Syria's Chemical Weapons Came From Saddam's Iraq

War On Terror: As the regime of Bashar Assad disintegrates, the security of his chemical arsenal is in jeopardy. The No. 2 general in Saddam Hussein's air force says they... Read More

www.investors.com

'"likely" Do you understand how many young American lives we ended and hurt over "likely"?

 

[gipper]

No. The President wasn't declaring war, but acting as the Commander-in-Chief of all US Armed forces and reacting to what he considers a threat to national security. AOC is a complete dumbass and has no idea what the Constitution says.

The president only has the constitutional right to respond to an imminent threat to the homeland. Iran wasn’t an imminent threat to the homeland.

MIGA!!!!

 

[pknopp]

MSN

Why might that happen like it did on 9-11? Could it be because of actions this past week? Do you think we should be the only country allowed to retaliate?

Remember, we called those who were trying to drive us from their countries "Terrorists".

 

[berg80]

I read more shit in a week than any of you morons read in a year,
and the Constitution is clear Congress declares war, but the President is the Commander-in-Chief.

If you read at all you have a leg up on Dotard.

"Congress declares war, but the President is the Commander-in-Chief."

Thanks for that Capt. Obvious. But it doesn't answer the question of the ambiguous authority of the two branches of government.

 

[berg80]

The president only has the constitutional right to respond to an imminent threat to the homeland. Iran wasn’t an imminent threat to the homeland.

MIGA!!!!

Clearly there's a lot of opportunity for grey areas that need to be clarified.

 

[gipper]

Largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world moron. Iran doesn't have to attck anyone they have a shit ton of proxies for that.

I never looked for Iraq's WMD's that likely found their way to Syria

Syria's Chemical Weapons Came From Saddam's Iraq

War On Terror: As the regime of Bashar Assad disintegrates, the security of his chemical arsenal is in jeopardy. The No. 2 general in Saddam Hussein's air force says they... Read More

www.investors.com

Propaganda designed to enrich and empower the MIC, and impoverish Americans. THINK!

How many nations has Iran unilaterally attacked over the last 300 years? Now compare that number to the Land of the Free in just the last 25 years?