Congress is preparing for a high-profile vote this week over President Trump’s military actions in Iran, reigniting a long-running constitutional debate over who has the authority to take the nation to war.
At the center of the dispute are two sections of the U.S. Constitution. Article I gives Congress the power to declare war and control federal spending. Article II designates the president as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Lawmakers on both sides say the current Iran campaign highlights the tension between those two authorities.
Indiana Congressman Mark Alford (R-MO) told CBN News he sides with the president’s prerogative. “The President has a solemn and constitutional duty to protect Americans and the homeland as Commander-in-Chief,” Alford says. “In today’s dangerous world, that requires the authority to initiate limited strikes at a moment’s notice, authority which Article II of the Constitution clearly provides and that has been used by Presidents of both parties for decades. At the same time, Congress maintains sole authority over full declarations of war.”
The House and Senate are expected to vote on competing war powers resolutions aimed at limiting Trump’s ability to continue military operations against Iran. The Senate vote is anticipated on Wednesday, followed by the House on Thursday. Both chambers are receiving classified briefings from senior administration officials.
Utah Congressman Burgess Owens (R-OH) described the constitutional disagreement as a balancing act. “Article I gives Congress the power to declare war and power of the purse,” Congressman Owens says. “Article II makes the President Commander in Chief. Our Constitution, therefore, grants shared but distinctively different responsibilities.”
The debate centers in part on the War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed after the Vietnam War over President Richard Nixon’s veto. The law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits military action without authorization to 60 days, with a possible 30-day withdrawal period.
However, presidents from both parties have questioned the constitutionality of the law, and the Supreme Court has never issued a definitive ruling on it. “The War Powers Resolution of 1973 presents thorny constitutional questions that should be adjudicated by the Supreme Court,” Alford said.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has argued that a formal war powers vote is unnecessary at this stage. “It’s not a declaration of war,” Johnson said. “It’s not something that the president was required, because it’s defensive in nature and in design and in necessity, to come to Congress and get a vote first.”
While the resolutions are widely expected to fail, the broader constitutional debate is likely to continue, particularly if U.S. involvement in Iran expands beyond limited strikes.
MORE: ‘The Big One Is Coming Soon’: Trump Warns Brunt of Attack on Iran Hasn’t Started; Tehran Escalates
