The Frams of the US Constitution lived at the age of musk and messengers, when the war gradually moved forward and left the time to honor the Congress and the President. But by giving the Congress the power to declare the war and the President of the Army, he set a platform for a permanent struggle on the US forces.

President Trump’s decision to start an airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear amenities has been strongly criticized by the Congress without consulting the first consultation, which says that this step bypasses its constitutional right to declare war.

Speaking on Monday on NPR Morning versionSen Mike Kelly, D-Eries. Said that where very few Democrats can do the administration to force the approval of the Congress, the President should still respect the constitutional norms. “The administration should follow the constitution,” Kelly said. “Traditionally, the presidents have done this. I know that recently, sometimes with some tasks, when it is seen as protecting our country’s security, the president can work, and then they should be able to inform us.”

Sen Tim Cin, D-W., were more direct in his criticism. Is visible on sunday CBS ‘ Facing nationHe said: “The United States should not be in an aggressive war against Iran without the Congress vote. The Constitution is completely clear on it. And I am so disappointed that the President has worked ahead of time.”

So what does the constitution really say?

Article I The Congress gives the power to declare “war and give letters to the market, and make rules related to occupying land and water.” Article IIMeanwhile, the President is nominated as the “Chief of the Army and the Commander of the Navy of the United States”, once authorized to the Executive Authority to direct the army after authorizing the conflict.

“I think it is very clear that Frammers thought that at any time we were going to decide to go to war with another country, which was going to be a decision for the Congress,” says Rebecca Ingar, a law professor at Cardozo Law School in New York.

Nevertheless, the presidents have long sent us to forces in the war without the formal announcement of war. As an initial example of this, Tulane indicates Professor Stephen Griffin of a constitutional law at Law School, Half -warA limited naval struggle between the US and its predecessor revolutionary war colleague, France. This took place at the end of the 18th century, but there was no formal announcement between the two countries.

After World War II, the trend was intensified, which operates to combine new military technologies and develop global institutions.

“The construction of the Atom bomb changed the game,” Griffin says. In the early Republic, communication slow and military deployment took months. After 1945, however, “things were intensified,” Griffin Note. “You will sometimes need an immediate response.”

He also indicates the influence of the United Nations, which the US helped establish in 1945. UN Charter The member states restrict the use of force by the member states except for self -defense or except for the security council’s approval. Even in the US, that structure helped to remove legal discussions from the formal announcements of war and said to concepts like “using force”.

Seriously, Griffin says, the Constitution does not require Congress to release the formal announcement of war. What matters legislative approval – such as an authority for the use of military force (AMF). “Constitutional requirement is about legislative approval,” they explain, “literally raise a document that ‘declares war’ and signs it.”

While there was not a formal announcement in the Korean War, the Gulf of Toncin Sankalp – is widely considered as a misleading statement of the facts of a naval encounter between an American destructive and North Vietnamese Gunbots – attracted the US to the South East Asian conflict. Passed it in 1964, the proposal authorized President Lindon Johnson to take military action in Southeast Asia. President George HW Bush received an AUMF for the Persian Gulf War in 1991. During the 1999 Kosovo crisis, President Bill Clinton launched a NATO bombing campaign after Yugoslavia without the Authority of the Congress.

Debate on these conflicts often saw legislative and executive branches on obstacles. In view of Vietnam war, Congress passed and demanded to return some rights 1973 war powers resolveWhich “… to fulfill the intentions of the Constitution’s Frammers” … and to ensure that both the Congress and the President will apply for the introduction of the United States Armed Forces in hostility. This became a law after ending the veto of Congress President Nixon.

Michael Glennon is a constitutional and international law professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at the University of Tfts, who was also a legal lawyer for the Senate Foreign Problems Committee in the late 1970s, where he handled the legal issues around the resolution of war powers.

“Vietnam became a turn for the Congress as his constituents were being killed,” says Glenn.

Initially, he and others were optimistic that the war powers would fix the imbalance between the Congress and the President and stop another Vietnam. Instead, the resolution has been ignored to a large extent by the presidents of both sides, they say. Over time, the administration has regularly met its requirements – instead of consulting the Congress, and to inform instead of continuing military operations without a proper authority.

Glenon believes that the Constitution “prevents the President from using the armed forces in attacking a country like Iran until the United States is attacked or is not at risk of an imminent attack.”

It did not happen, he says, “And I conclude, therefore, it was unconstitutional,” they say.

But Glennon admitted that the need for “generally speaking,” has been complied with under the resolution of 1973 to consult the Congress. “But under some circumstances, Congress has been informed [ahead of time] Instead of consultation. The resolve of war powers has not done this. ,

Cardoxo Law School Ingars, agree. “Even this administration … at least pointing to those requirements. Even defense secretary [Pete] Hegseth Said, [the administration is acting] ,According to the resolve of war powers,

The modicum of respect for at least the resolution underlines that “it is widely considered constitutionally appropriate under Congress” ‘Necessary and appropriate’ Power, “Griffin says.

If the attack on Iran is actually one closed-the administration has said-the need to receive the authority from the Congress for the use of monkey force is unnecessary, they say.

But if it turns into a tight-for-tat with Iran, Trump should get an authority. This will satisfy the resolve of war powers-and will strengthen their legal position, “according to Griffin.