Progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — and even some Republicans, including Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — are calling President Trump’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities unconstitutional because he didn’t get congressional approval. They point to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the sole power to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires congressional authorization for prolonged or substantial military actions unless responding to an imminent attack, as evidence that his actions were unjustified.
AOC and Democratic Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) have even gone so far as to claim that the strikes are an impeachable offense.
To get clarity on the issue, Glenn Beck brought in Gabriel Noronha, president of Polaris National Security and former State Department special adviser for Iran.
“Did the president need to have congressional permission before striking Iran over the weekend?” Glenn asks.
“No, he did not,” is Noronha’s candid answer.
“It would have been nice to have. It strengthens the president’s hand when he does have congressional authorization for the use of military force. But the Constitution grants him the powers as commander in chief to take all necessary actions, especially in a limited fashion like he just did,” he explains.
Glenn agrees, adding, “They never said anything about ISIS when he went after ISIS and shut them down, right? … Why all of a sudden is this one so different than all of the limited strikes we have seen from all of the presidents recently?”
Noronha reiterates Glenn’s frustration, pointing to “Libya 2011” as well as “ISIS 2014-15,” where “more intense” versions of the “the same scenario” played out, but “Democrats didn’t say anything” about needing congressional approval.
Why the sudden pearl-clutching?
“The reason here,” says Noronha, “is because they want to find something to attack President Trump for, but there’s nothing on the policy because [the strikes] went so well, so they’re going onto the legal crutch just because they don’t have anything else.”
Ironically, Congress has had multiple opportunities to prevent presidents from attacking Iran. Noronha, who was “in Congress for four years,” says he witnessed at least “a dozen” attempts to “strip the president of the ability to attack Iran,” and every single time, they failed.
“They always said, ‘No, we want the president to have the ability to strike Iran if and when it’s necessary,”’ he tells Glenn.
But when it comes to Donald Trump specifically, there’s always been a double standard.
“Congress is so radicalized now,” says Glenn. “They’re marching in the streets with people who are burning our cities to the ground.”
To hear more of the conversation, watch the video above.
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
The post Expert explains why Trump’s Iran strike did NOT violate the Constitution appeared first on TheBlaze.
