I'm sick of seeing meme's and complaints that President Trump didn't consult with Congress and get approval before we struck Iran today. The ones who are the most offensive are those members of Congress who claim this is an illegal attack because they weren't notified.
You would think that someone who has been elected (and some even RE-Elected!) to the Senate or the House of Representatives would have at least a basic, grade school level understanding of their duties and the laws pertaining to their duties.
It disgusts me that so many of our elected "leaders" are so incredibly...stupid.
So, I did what even those idiots could do, if they took a minute to think before they talk. I asked Google AI some simple questions.
So. This little session illustrates a couple of things I'd like to point out:Larry: "How long does the President have, by law, before he has to notify Congress that he's even engaged in military action?"
GAI (Google AI):
GAI (Google AI):
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the President is legally required to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. Armed Forces into actual or imminent hostilities
Initial Report (48 Hours): A written report must be submitted to Congressional leaders within 48 hours of deploying forces into hostilities, equipped for combat, or in significant numbers
Action Limits (60-90 Days):
The President must terminate the use of Armed Forces within 60 days unless Congress declares war, authorizes the action, or extends the period
A 30-day extension is allowed for safe withdrawal
Content:
The report must outline the circumstances, authority, and estimated scope/duration of the deployment
Exceptions: The Act does not hinder the President's authority to act in self-defense
Compliance: While over 130 reports have been submitted, presidents frequently argue that the 60-day limit is unconstitutional, often avoiding explicit citations that trigger the clock
Larry: "What does "consult with Congress" actually mean?"
(GAI)
In the context of the War Powers Resolution (WPR), "consultation" is legally intended to be a collaborative process rather than the President simply informing Congress of a finished decision.
According to Section 3 of the WPR, the President must consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before introducing U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent. This requirement also mandates regular, ongoing consultation as long as those forces remain in such situations.
The House report accompanying the original 1973 legislation provides specific guidance on what meaningful consultation should look like:
A Pending Decision: Consultation means a decision on a problem is still pending. It is not synonymous with "merely being informed" after the fact.
Seeking Advice: The President should actively ask Members of Congress for their advice and opinions, and in some cases, their approval for the contemplated action.
Presidential Participation: For consultation to be considered meaningful, the President personally must participate in the process.
Full Disclosure: All information relevant to the situation must be made available to Congress to ensure the "collective judgment" of both branches.
Despite these clear intentions, the consultation requirement remains one of the most controversial and loosely interpreted parts of the law:
The "Every Possible Instance" Clause: This phrase is often used by presidents to justify skipping prior consultation if they deem a situation too urgent or if secrecy is required for military success.
Vague Targets: While the original House version of the bill specified consulting with congressional leadership and appropriate committees, the final law used less specific wording to allow for more flexibility.
Lack of Enforcement: Unlike the 48-hour reporting requirement, which triggers a 60-day clock for the withdrawal of troops, a failure to consult does not directly trigger any automatic statutory penalties or adverse legal actions.
Ongoing Tensions: Members of Congress frequently criticize presidents for notifying them only hours before a strike, arguing this does not meet the "meaningful" standard set by the law's authors.
Larry: "How many times, in the past 20 years, have Presidents initiated military action without prior notification of Congress?"
(GAI)
In the past 20 years, U.S. Presidents have initiated military action without prior notification of Congress on at least dozens of occasions. While the War Powers Resolution (WPR) requires a report within 48 hours after action begins, it is now standard practice for presidents to act first and report later.
Total Reports Submitted: Since 1973, presidents have submitted over 168 reports to Congress after initiating military operations.
Broad Use of Authority: Reports have covered operations in at least 40 different countries.
Barack Obama: Ordered a 2011 military intervention in Libya and hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen without advance congressional approval.
Donald Trump: Conducted missile strikes in Syria (2017/2018) and the 2020 strike on Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq without prior notification.
Joe Biden: Ordered multiple airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria (2021–2024).
President Bill Clinton regularly engaged in military operations without prior congressional approval, submitting a total of 38 reports under the War Powers Resolution (WPR) during his two terms—the most of any president at that time.
His actions in Kosovo (1999) are considered one of the most significant tests of the WPR in U.S. history, as he continued military operations well beyond the legally mandated 60-day limit without ever receiving a formal "green light" from lawmakers.
President Clinton unilaterally ordered force in multiple regions, often citing his inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive:
Kosovo (1999): Launched a massive NATO air campaign against the Serbian government to end "ethnic cleansing" in the region.
Iraq (1993, 1998): Ordered a missile strike on Baghdad in 1993 after discovering an Iraqi plot to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush. He also conducted air attacks against Iraq in 1998 to enforce compliance with UN resolutions.
Sudan and Afghanistan (1998): Launched cruise missile strikes against terrorist targets in response to U.S. embassy bombings.
Bosnia and Haiti: Deployed U.S. forces to these regions in the early 1990s for peacekeeping and stabilization missions without seeking advance legislative authorization.
The 1999 intervention in Kosovo was particularly controversial due to its duration and the lack of congressional support:
Voting Record: On April 28, 1999, the House explicitly voted down a declaration of war (427 to 2) and failed to authorize the airstrikes in a tie vote (213 to 213).
Bypassing the Limit: Despite the WPR's requirement to withdraw forces within 60 days if Congress does not authorize the action, Clinton continued the bombing campaign for 79 days.
Legal Theory: The Clinton administration argued they were in compliance because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they claimed constituted "implicit authorization". This was highly controversial because the WPR specifically states that funding does not equal authorization.
Clinton's actions in Kosovo led to a landmark court case, Campbell v. Clinton, where 31 members of Congress sued the President for violating the Constitution and the WPR.
Outcome: The lawsuit was dismissed. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lawmakers lacked standing to sue because they had other legislative remedies (like stopping funding) they could have used but didn't.
Precedent: This case effectively confirmed that the judiciary is reluctant to intervene in war powers disputes, viewing them as "political questions" rather than legal ones.
Larry: "Has the definition of 'imminent hostilities' changed in War Powers Resolution interpretations?"
(GAI)
While the text of the War Powers Resolution (WPR) has not changed since 1973, the executive branch's interpretation of what constitutes "hostilities" (and by extension, "imminent hostilities") has narrowed significantly over time to bypass the law's restrictions.
1973 Legislative Intent: The House report originally defined "hostilities" to include "a state of confrontation in which no shots have been fired but where there is a clear and present danger of armed conflict".
The Modern "Libya Standard" (2011): A major shift occurred during the 2011 intervention in Libya. The Obama administration argued that "hostilities" did not exist because the mission was limited in nature, lacked "boots on the ground," and involved a low risk of escalation. This interpretation allows presidents to carry out drone strikes or aerial bombardments without triggering the 60-day withdrawal clock.
Article II Justification: Recent administrations (Trump, Biden) have increasingly cited Article II "national interest" authority to justify strikes that do not "rise to the level of a war in the constitutional sense," effectively avoiding the "imminent hostilities" trigger entirely.
Intermittent vs. Sustained: The executive branch often treats a series of related, intermittent strikes as discrete events rather than a single, sustained period of hostilities. This prevents the 60-day clock from starting for long-term regional conflicts.
Self-Defense Exclusion: Department of Justice (DOJ) opinions have argued that "hostilities" do not include sporadic attacks or actions taken purely in self-defense, exempting many modern counter-terrorism operations from the WPR reporting requirements.
Elasticity of Terms: Legal scholars note that the "elasticity" of the term "hostilities" has become a tool for presidents to argue that the War Powers Resolution's withdrawal mandate simply does not apply to a wide range of modern military activities.
Larry: "Did Secretary Rubio notify seven of the "Gang pf Eight" Congressmen prior to the Iran attacks this morning?"
(GAI):
Yes, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly contacted all members of the "Gang of Eight" prior to the U.S.-Israeli military strikes on Iran today, February 28, 2026, though he was only able to reach and brief seven of the eight members before the operation began.
According to the White House and congressional sources, the timeline for these notifications was as follows:
Advance Briefing (Tuesday, Feb 24): Secretary Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe held an hour-long, in-person briefing for the Gang of Eight earlier in the week to outline potential military action.
Key Deadlines and Requirements
Initial Report (48 Hours): A written report must be submitted to Congressional leaders within 48 hours of deploying forces into hostilities, equipped for combat, or in significant numbers
Action Limits (60-90 Days):
The President must terminate the use of Armed Forces within 60 days unless Congress declares war, authorizes the action, or extends the period
A 30-day extension is allowed for safe withdrawal
Content:
The report must outline the circumstances, authority, and estimated scope/duration of the deployment
Key Legal Nuances
Consultation: The President is directed to consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before introducing forcesExceptions: The Act does not hinder the President's authority to act in self-defense
Compliance: While over 130 reports have been submitted, presidents frequently argue that the 60-day limit is unconstitutional, often avoiding explicit citations that trigger the clock
Larry: "What does "consult with Congress" actually mean?"
(GAI)
In the context of the War Powers Resolution (WPR), "consultation" is legally intended to be a collaborative process rather than the President simply informing Congress of a finished decision.
According to Section 3 of the WPR, the President must consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before introducing U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent. This requirement also mandates regular, ongoing consultation as long as those forces remain in such situations.
Legal Definition and Intent
The House report accompanying the original 1973 legislation provides specific guidance on what meaningful consultation should look like:
A Pending Decision: Consultation means a decision on a problem is still pending. It is not synonymous with "merely being informed" after the fact.
Seeking Advice: The President should actively ask Members of Congress for their advice and opinions, and in some cases, their approval for the contemplated action.
Presidential Participation: For consultation to be considered meaningful, the President personally must participate in the process.
Full Disclosure: All information relevant to the situation must be made available to Congress to ensure the "collective judgment" of both branches.
Practical and Legal Challenges
Despite these clear intentions, the consultation requirement remains one of the most controversial and loosely interpreted parts of the law:
The "Every Possible Instance" Clause: This phrase is often used by presidents to justify skipping prior consultation if they deem a situation too urgent or if secrecy is required for military success.
Vague Targets: While the original House version of the bill specified consulting with congressional leadership and appropriate committees, the final law used less specific wording to allow for more flexibility.
Lack of Enforcement: Unlike the 48-hour reporting requirement, which triggers a 60-day clock for the withdrawal of troops, a failure to consult does not directly trigger any automatic statutory penalties or adverse legal actions.
Ongoing Tensions: Members of Congress frequently criticize presidents for notifying them only hours before a strike, arguing this does not meet the "meaningful" standard set by the law's authors.
Larry: "How many times, in the past 20 years, have Presidents initiated military action without prior notification of Congress?"
(GAI)
In the past 20 years, U.S. Presidents have initiated military action without prior notification of Congress on at least dozens of occasions. While the War Powers Resolution (WPR) requires a report within 48 hours after action begins, it is now standard practice for presidents to act first and report later.
Frequency of Military Action Without Prior Notice
Total Reports Submitted: Since 1973, presidents have submitted over 168 reports to Congress after initiating military operations.
Broad Use of Authority: Reports have covered operations in at least 40 different countries.
Recent Examples (2004–2024):
Barack Obama: Ordered a 2011 military intervention in Libya and hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen without advance congressional approval.
Donald Trump: Conducted missile strikes in Syria (2017/2018) and the 2020 strike on Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq without prior notification.
Joe Biden: Ordered multiple airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria (2021–2024).
President Bill Clinton regularly engaged in military operations without prior congressional approval, submitting a total of 38 reports under the War Powers Resolution (WPR) during his two terms—the most of any president at that time.
His actions in Kosovo (1999) are considered one of the most significant tests of the WPR in U.S. history, as he continued military operations well beyond the legally mandated 60-day limit without ever receiving a formal "green light" from lawmakers.
Key Military Actions Without Prior Approval
President Clinton unilaterally ordered force in multiple regions, often citing his inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive:
Kosovo (1999): Launched a massive NATO air campaign against the Serbian government to end "ethnic cleansing" in the region.
Iraq (1993, 1998): Ordered a missile strike on Baghdad in 1993 after discovering an Iraqi plot to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush. He also conducted air attacks against Iraq in 1998 to enforce compliance with UN resolutions.
Sudan and Afghanistan (1998): Launched cruise missile strikes against terrorist targets in response to U.S. embassy bombings.
Bosnia and Haiti: Deployed U.S. forces to these regions in the early 1990s for peacekeeping and stabilization missions without seeking advance legislative authorization.
The Kosovo Controversy and the 60-Day Clock
The 1999 intervention in Kosovo was particularly controversial due to its duration and the lack of congressional support:
Voting Record: On April 28, 1999, the House explicitly voted down a declaration of war (427 to 2) and failed to authorize the airstrikes in a tie vote (213 to 213).
Bypassing the Limit: Despite the WPR's requirement to withdraw forces within 60 days if Congress does not authorize the action, Clinton continued the bombing campaign for 79 days.
Legal Theory: The Clinton administration argued they were in compliance because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they claimed constituted "implicit authorization". This was highly controversial because the WPR specifically states that funding does not equal authorization.
Judicial Challenge: Campbell v. Clinton
Clinton's actions in Kosovo led to a landmark court case, Campbell v. Clinton, where 31 members of Congress sued the President for violating the Constitution and the WPR.
Outcome: The lawsuit was dismissed. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lawmakers lacked standing to sue because they had other legislative remedies (like stopping funding) they could have used but didn't.
Precedent: This case effectively confirmed that the judiciary is reluctant to intervene in war powers disputes, viewing them as "political questions" rather than legal ones.
Larry: "Has the definition of 'imminent hostilities' changed in War Powers Resolution interpretations?"
(GAI)
While the text of the War Powers Resolution (WPR) has not changed since 1973, the executive branch's interpretation of what constitutes "hostilities" (and by extension, "imminent hostilities") has narrowed significantly over time to bypass the law's restrictions.
1973 Legislative Intent: The House report originally defined "hostilities" to include "a state of confrontation in which no shots have been fired but where there is a clear and present danger of armed conflict".
The Modern "Libya Standard" (2011): A major shift occurred during the 2011 intervention in Libya. The Obama administration argued that "hostilities" did not exist because the mission was limited in nature, lacked "boots on the ground," and involved a low risk of escalation. This interpretation allows presidents to carry out drone strikes or aerial bombardments without triggering the 60-day withdrawal clock.
Article II Justification: Recent administrations (Trump, Biden) have increasingly cited Article II "national interest" authority to justify strikes that do not "rise to the level of a war in the constitutional sense," effectively avoiding the "imminent hostilities" trigger entirely.
Key Interpretive Shifts
Intermittent vs. Sustained: The executive branch often treats a series of related, intermittent strikes as discrete events rather than a single, sustained period of hostilities. This prevents the 60-day clock from starting for long-term regional conflicts.
Self-Defense Exclusion: Department of Justice (DOJ) opinions have argued that "hostilities" do not include sporadic attacks or actions taken purely in self-defense, exempting many modern counter-terrorism operations from the WPR reporting requirements.
Elasticity of Terms: Legal scholars note that the "elasticity" of the term "hostilities" has become a tool for presidents to argue that the War Powers Resolution's withdrawal mandate simply does not apply to a wide range of modern military activities.
Larry: "Did Secretary Rubio notify seven of the "Gang pf Eight" Congressmen prior to the Iran attacks this morning?"
(GAI):
Yes, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly contacted all members of the "Gang of Eight" prior to the U.S.-Israeli military strikes on Iran today, February 28, 2026, though he was only able to reach and brief seven of the eight members before the operation began.
According to the White House and congressional sources, the timeline for these notifications was as follows:
Advance Briefing (Tuesday, Feb 24): Secretary Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe held an hour-long, in-person briefing for the Gang of Eight earlier in the week to outline potential military action.
Final Notification (Friday Night/Early Saturday): Immediately preceding the strikes, Rubio attempted to reach all eight leaders via phone and text to notify them the operation was imminent.
Result: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Rubio successfully connected with and briefed seven members.
1. Past Democrat Presidents have carried out multiple military actions without "Congressional Approval". No cries for impeachment and no bitching about "illegal war". Once again, your Bias is showing!
2. President Trump DID perform his War Powers Act duties and inform Congress that he was going to act, so the whole complaint is moot.
My conclusion; to noisy, chronically biased and frequently wrong members of Congress..."Shut up. You're looking like an idiot".
To noisy members of the Social Media community, who are badly infected with TDS: "Shut up. Take some time to learn something and not just mindlessly repeat what you are told or copy and paste a TDS meme because you think "Orange man BAD".
No comments:
Post a Comment