President Trump’s critics charge that his order to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities without securing prior congressional approval was unconstitutional and may justify his impeachment, which will occur in 2027 should the Democrats win the House of Representatives in the 2026 congressional elections. Yet his actions can also be seen as justified by the dangers posed by the current Iranian regime, and consistent with precedents allowing unilateral presidential actions to advance foreign policy goals or meet national security threats.
Last week, it was noted that the Constitution seems to make the Congress the first, most powerful, branch of government. The Constitution grants to the Congress the power, through legislation, to determine the size, organization, financing, and policies of both the executive and judicial branches of government. The president may recommend legislation as well as veto legislation passed by Congress, but the Congress may either ignore or reject the president’s recommendations, override his vetoes, and impeach and remove him from office if he doesn’t do what Congress wants him to do. And the Senate has the last say on the staffing of both the executive and judicial branches of government through its power to accept or reject the president’s nominees for executive and judicial office.
We also noted that this principle of Congressional domination applies to the military power of the president. He may, as the Constitution says, be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. But the Congress, as in everything else, has the power to determine what armed forces we’ll have, as well as their size, organization, and budgets. Moreover, the Congress has the sole power to declare war, and those who wrote the Constitution believed this to mean that the President could order the armed forces into battle only within the terms of a congressional war declaration or to repel a direct invasion of or attack on American soil.
President Trump’s critics are saying that his order to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities was unconstitutional because his order had no prior congressional authorization and Iran posed no immediate threat to American national security anyway. Should the Democrats win the House of Representatives in the 2026 elections, Trump’s third impeachment will be a foregone conclusion, and the bombing of Iran will no doubt be added to the litany of charges the Democrats will bring against him.
It’s tempting to say that if Trump’s impeachment is a foregone conclusion, his acquittal by a Senate with either a Republican majority or with at least enough Republicans to prevent conviction and removal is also a foregone conclusion. But one should be cautious. After all, While only one Republican senator voted to remove Trump following his first impeachment, seven voted for his conviction in 2021. And while the majority of Republicans in both the House and Senate probably approve of the bombing, a minority of skeptics questioning the bombing’s constitutionality may be emerging. If that minority is big enough, the Democrats could conceivably win enough GOP support in the Senate the third time around to remove Trump from office.
So what can be said in President Trump’s defense should the Democrats make a third attempt to impeach him in 2027? The most obvious point to make is that the Iranian regime’s quest for nuclear weapons was one of the greatest threats to world peace—a threat which has been diffused, at least for the time being, courtesy of President Trump.
And it can also be argued that Trump’s orders on Saturday night are not without precedent. In 2011 President Obama ordered, without prior congressional approval, the bombing of Libya to facilitate the overthrow of its murderous dictator, Muammar Gaddafi—a pet project of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Why did nobody want to impeach either Obama or Clinton? (Supporters of Obama and Clinton may argue that they did win United Nations approval before acting, but there is no mention of the United Nations as a source of presidential war making authority in our Constitution.)
Besides, while the 1973 War Powers Resolution Act requires the President to at least give advance notice to Congress before taking military action when feasible, it allows the President to take action without prior notification if secrecy is required—provided he informs the Congress of what he’s done within 48 hours after acting. President Trump has been nothing if not candid in his post-bombing statements.
So while Trump’s impeachment is probable, depending on the outcome of the 2026 congressional elections, and his acquittal is not necessarily guaranteed, he and his supporters still have a strong case to make. But no such case can be made for unilateral presidential actions concerning domestic policy matters. While Obama’s executive orders on immigration, Biden’s actions on student debt forgiveness, and Trump’s imposition of tariffs don’t rise to he level of impeachable offenses, they were nonetheless inexcusable expansions of presidential power facilitated by inexcusable abdications of congressional authority—a topic deserving of greater exploration soon.
Malcolm L. Cross has lived in Stephenville since 1987 and taught politics and government at Tarleton for 36 years, retiring in 2023. His political and civic activities include service on the Stephenville City Council (2000-2014) and on the Erath County Republican Executive Committee (1990-2024). He was Mayor pro-tem of Stephenville from 2008 to 2014. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Stephenville
Economic Development Authority since 2018 and as chair of the Erath County Appraisal District’s Appraisal Review Board since 2015. He is also a member of the Stephenville Rotary Club, the Board of Vestry of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, and the Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts’ Pecan Valley District. Views expressed in this column are his and do not reflect those of The Flash as a whole.
Be the first to comment