Is advocating genocide of Jews protected speech? A 1st amendment seminal for university presidents. Watch the Dershow on Youtube, Rumble, Spotify and Apple. I taught at Harvard Law School for fifty years hear it from me not some CNN/FOX talking head.
President Trump Delivers Remarks in Riyadh After Securing $600B Saudi Deal, May 13, 2025
AS GOOD AS IT GETS !
Even as a tenuous cease-fire between Iran and Israel appears to hold, Democrats in the US Congress are falling over themselves to condemn President Donald Trump for the strikes that made this chance at peace possible.
Trump's Iran attack is 'unauthorized and unconstitutional,' said the No. 2 Democrat in the House, Katherine Clark.
'Donald Trump's decision to launch direct military action against Iran without congressional approval is a clear violation of the Constitution,' added Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went further, claiming Trump's action 'is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.'
That's absurd.
The framers of the Constitution understood the difference between Congress officially declaring war, on the one hand, and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces taking military action in defense of our nation, in the other hand.
The original draft of Article 1 allocated to Congress the power to 'make war.' But James Madison, the father of our Constitution, demanded that it be amended so that the president would have broader authority to take actions in defense of our country.
During the subsequent two and a quarter centuries, various presidents and members of Congress have interpreted this division of authority differently, and many presidents have taken military action without declarations of war or even congressional authorization.
In recent years, Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama authorized significant military actions without any complaints by Democratic members of Congress, including several who have now whined about Trump having acted unconstitutionally.
This is hypocrisy on stilts and reflects the extreme partisan weaponization of the Constitution, even over foreign and military policies.
What President Trump did is not different in kind or degree from what previous presidents – both Democrats and Republicans – have done without congressional authorization.
The last time Congress declared war was shortly after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. There were no declarations of war over Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Granada or Panama. In fact, it is unlikely we will ever again see another declaration of war.
Perhaps Congress will now do what it has done since the end of World War II: pass resolutions authorizing limited military action by the president. Though, these hybrid resolutions are not authorized by the Constitution either and it is unlikely that they carry any legal weight.
Indeed, all this handwringing on the left will come to nothing.
The courts, especially the Supreme Court, are reluctant to interfere with executive decisions involving military actions, even those that involve boots on the ground for considerable periods of time.
So, by all means, let's continue to debate the wisdom of Trump's decision as a matter of policy, but let's not improperly weaponize a constitutional provision that was never intended to prevent presidents from taking actions deemed necessary to defend our nation, such as the surgical, one-off bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities.
As a matter of policy, a president should not be required to show his hand before ordering a surprise military attack of the kind.
The consequences, both short and long term, of President Trump's bold decision remain to be seen, but he surely had the power to make that decision if he deemed it in the best interests of the country.
Congress can now hold hearings, both open and closed, to assess the president's actions, but only hypocritical Democrats, and hard-left radicals afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome will argue that what Trump did was unconstitutional or unlawful. It was not.
