ABNA24 - Members of the U.S. Congress have objected to the resumption of military action against Iran, describing President Donald Trump’s actions as an attempt to bypass the U.S. Constitution.
Mike Levin, a Democratic congressman from California, said that President Donald Trump had informed Congress that hostilities with Iran had resumed.
Levin added that Trump was announcing a renewed conflict while simultaneously claiming that the decision to go to war rested solely with him—an assertion that, according to Levin, contradicts the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
“No president has the right to claim absolute and exclusive authority over matters of war,” the congressman said.
The Democratic lawmaker also called for partisan divisions to be set aside, arguing that the time had come for Republicans to join Democrats in putting an end to “the idea that a single individual can unilaterally decide issues of war and peace.”
Meanwhile, Representative Teresa Leger Fernández, another Democratic member of Congress, stressed that Trump cannot end a war on paper in order to circumvent the law and then resume it whenever he chooses. She said:
“Enough is enough. The lies and the endless wars must stop.”
Fernández also argued that Trump had previously misled the public by claiming that the conflict had ended, and that he has now informed Congress that hostilities have resumed while seeking another 60-day period to continue military operations without congressional approval.
In the same vein, Senator Adam Schiff emphasized that the Trump administration’s military action against Iran lacks a legal basis because it was undertaken without authorization from Congress.
“We were promised that the war would be over within days,” Schiff said. “Instead, we have gone from a bad agreement between the United States and Iran to more attacks, another blockade, and greater turmoil that will only drive prices higher.”
Schiff further stressed that any claim by the Trump administration that the president has another 60 days to act without congressional approval “has no legal basis.”
/129
Your Comment