Posted on 05/01/2026 1:11:19 PM PDT by Miami Rebel
President Donald Trump notified Congress on Friday that the conflict between the United States and Iran has been terminated, just as the 60–day War Powers Act deadline for congressional approval lapses later in the day.
“On April 7, 2026, I ordered a two-week ceasefire. The ceasefire has since been extended. There has been no exchange of fire between United States forces and Iran since April 7, 2026,” Trump wrote to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) in a Friday letter.
Trump was asked about seeking Congressional approval earlier in the day at the White House and replied, “So many presidents, as you know, have gone and exceeded it. It’s never been used. It’s never been adhered to. And every other president considered it totally unconstitutional, and we agree with that.”
Republican Sen. Todd Young (R-ID) took a different view in remarks to reporters, saying that should the war begin again, he expects Trump to come to Congress first. Young said that “given the administration’s stated position that the Iran conflict has ceased, there should be no hostilities moving forward. I expect the administration to work with Congress on the need for an AUMF should conflict resume.”
“We must ensure that the people, through their elected representatives, weigh in on whether to send our military into combat. This should not be controversial,” he added.
Iran put forward a new proposal on Friday to end the war as negotiations continue with Pakistan facilitating talks. Trump said he was not “satisfied” with the proposal, but emphasized that Iran “wants a deal.”
Trump letter made clear he stands ready to resume hostilities with Iran at any time and argued that any future fighting does not fall under the War Powers Act’s limitations.
“The Department of War continues to update its force posture in the AOR (area of responsibility in select countries, as necessary and appropriate, to address Iranian and Iranian proxy forces’ threats and to protect the United States and its allies and partners,” he wrote in the letter, adding, “These changes are more fully outlined in the classified attachment to this letter.”
> What would the Supreme Court rule? <
That’s where it should go, and quickly. I think the Constitution is clear. Congress declares war. Then the president runs the war.
But just what is a war? And as you noted, the War Powers Resolution is not the final word. It does not have the weight of an article of the Constitution.
This is a Supreme Court issue.
“Oh, I see what you mean. You are arguing from the War Powers Resolution point of view while I’m arguing from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.”
Presidents with the given or de facto assent of Congress have been bypassing that since President Thomas Jefferson. You’d think one of the nations founders most of all would be correctly interpreting the intent of that part of the Constitution.
“Do as I say, not as I do.”
- President Thomas Jefferson
(Just kidding. You have a point.)
Trump should start giving Congress direction via executive orders. The first could involve the filibuster. I mean if Congress thinks Trump has to get their permission to exercise his constitutional authority, it is only fair he should be allowed to demand the same of them.
This position adopted by the administration is asinine.
Plain stupid. I don’t understand what’s going on. It’s like someone else is POTUS.
Will a district court judge step in and overrule him?
Diesel went from 4.69 on Monday to 5.69 today. Trump has us on such a roller coaster most people don’t know whether to ship or go blind.
Given the choices on the other side I’d vote for him again but I am disappointed in him over this mess he has gotten us and the rest of the world in. The 3.5% inflation report is just the tip of the iceberg.
I actually do not disagree with your point, in principle.
But, the political reality is the principle requires the executive and Congress jointly to stand by it, and for the most part they have not done so when Congress has chosen not to challenge the executive on it.
For the benefit of adhering to a principle, it is required that doing so - adhering to the principle - has a continuous positive record, which it does not. That makes the matter rest on political decisions, which rests on political realities.
I take those realities to mean, and have meant in the past, Congress inaction has been the action giving political assent to the executive when the 60 day limit is breached. In that sense not just the executive but the Congress as well are making a political interpretation of the spirit and demands of Article 1 Section 8. That may not accord with a strict reading of Article 1 Section 8, but the nation and its institutions have survived with the political interpretations that may not meet that strict reading.
I am of a mind along with some of the founders that there are some matters of national interest and necessity that cannot be left to committees of legislatures and require executive command to be handled best of all. The one way the Congress can use the powers at its command to alter any course of the executive is the power of the purse. And as to any real or potential breaches of Article 1 Section 8 that is usually how Congress has checked the executive. I am fine with that, if and when Congress is willing. When Congress is not so willing I take it not as a Constitutional problem, just a political matter that Congress is free to alter course on at any time.
SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress
before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities
or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,
and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress
until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
REPORTING
SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate
solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier,
the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted),
unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.
Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days
if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing
that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces
requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/93/hjres542/text
The Congress has Article I, Section 8 power to make rules for the government (clerks, SES, President, district judges and even the Supreme Court).
The WPR weak point:
“the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted)”
The report concerned Iran’s support of terrorism I believe.
The freedom of navigation of the claimed waters of the UAE and Oman may not have been mentioned in the report.
If Iran attacks a tanker after Trump’s clock hits 60, Trump get a new clock.
Good post.
👍
Judges.
Do you think Congressional leaders may believe they have the power, should they choose to use it, to end the blockade?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.