In a letter instigated by Representative Peter DeFazio and Representative Nancy Mace, members of the U.S Constitution are raising their collective voices against President Joe Biden’s recent airstrikes conducted in Yemen. The letter illustrates the distinct disapproval and worries of 41 house members of U.S Congress. They, spearheaded by DeFazio and Mace, are enjoining the president to look more into the United States Constitution’s War Powers Resolution and respect its principles.
The War Powers Resolution, instituted in 1973, is explicit about the role the U.S Congress should play in military interventions. It stipulates that the president is under obligation to seek the approval or authorization of Congress before any military action except in self-defense instances. The House members stress that this constitutional protocol must be upheld. Thus, they firmly argue that legislation can only make the airstrike in Yemen legitimate.
What led to this roundtable of dissenting voices is the February 26, 2021 strike that the U.S Department of Defense confirmed. The Department, in its briefing, spelt out that President Biden had ordered a military strike against Iran-backed militias in Syria who were implicated in rocket attacks against American forces. While the department validated the operation as a foray to guard American interests from the malicious threats coming from Iranian-backed forces and deter future similar threats, the manner in which the military intervention occurred continues to raise issues among the House members.
House members assert that the President’s decision oversteps the bounds of his executive powers. Granting the president broad latitude to carry out bombardments without the express consent of the Congress not only undermines but also violates the power-sharing agreement established by the Constitution. They express their concerns as per the notification transmitted to the House about the strike. It offers no justification regarding the ‘imminent threat,’ therefore not fitting the constitutional allowance for military operations without due congressional approval.
In reiterating the necessity of the War Powers Resolution application, the caveat in this constitutional measure is being particularly emphasized. It highlights that such warrantless military actions can only be warranted when there’s an imminent threat to the country. In the account of the Congress members, the briefing sent to them about the airstrike in Yemen doesn’t show such facets of immediate threat.
The House members, through the letter, reinvigorate their opposition to uncurbed executive powers in matters of military interventions, putting their foot down on respect for constitutional bounds and measures. This step aims at safeguarding the constitutional mandate of Congress in matters of war and peace. Therefore, they seek the necessary official inclusion in decisions that concern such critical subjects as demonstrated in the Yemen airstrikes.
The bipartisan standpoint from the House members electing to confront the president over these airstrikes underlines the converging consensus for ensuring adherence to the Constitution, unswayed by political affinities. In the final analysis, it seems the concern from Congress members is not just about the airstrike itself but the larger portrait of the constitutional protocol regarding war powers resolution. They emphasize that adherence to these laws will not only regularize military actions but also enhance the democratic fibers that define the United States.