Congress Won’t Act on the Iran Strikes. That Doesn’t Make Them Legal.
Indeed, there is little political will to repudiate the president, and even if there were, legislators should bring together a majority to the TOF test to take concrete measures. The reversal of a presidential veto would require the support of two thirds of the members, which is unlikely in a republican-majority congress. In 2019, the congress approved a measure that would have attracted American support for the Saudi Arabia conflict in Yemen, but this resolution was opposed to Trump. This puts the congress in a “terrible solution,” said Hathaway: rather than the president going to the congress to authorize military action, the Congress must take the initiative to repudiate him.
“We find ourselves with this helplessness learned in the sense that Congress chooses to stop trying, because what is it for?” said Hathaway. “The president learned that [he] Can use military force without asking the authorities of the congress without consequences. »»
In addition to an apparent reluctance to counter military commitments on a smaller scale of presidents, the Congress also had trouble repealing or updating authorizations for the use of military force in Iraq and Afghanistan approved before the Gulf War and after the terrorist attacks of September 11. The 2001 authorization, which applied to the authors of the September 11 attacks, was processed by the presidents as an approval of the umbrella to strike other organizations affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Efforts to reverse or restrict these authorizations have trained in recent years, even decades after their approved.
The fight against the president invites the risks for the members of the Congress. For the Republicans, the resistance to the president’s objectives will only court Trump’s reprisals. More generally, however, legislators consider that the authorization of the start of military commitments – or ordering them to stop – obtains involuntary political consequences. The vote in favor of the authorization of the 2003 military force in Iraq has become a great political albatrossess for the primary democratic candidates during the presidential election of 2008. That said, the repeal of such an authorization also invites the return of flame if, for example, the decision to suppress such a law has been followed by a terrorist attack on American soil, or of American interests threatened abroad. The status quo has a latent appeal to legislators, who can compensate for the political risk of military intervention while maintaining the ability to criticize it – or take credit.
