As a fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel reportedly holds, prominent legal scholar Alan Dershowitz has sharply criticized Congressional Democrats for their swift condemnation of President Donald Trump’s military strikes against Iran, arguing that their accusations of unconstitutionality are baseless and politically motivated.
Dershowitz, a renowned constitutional lawyer, dismissed claims from leading Democrats, including House Majority Leader Katherine Clark and Intelligence Committee Democrat Jim Himes, who labeled Trump’s actions “unauthorized and unconstitutional.” He also scoffed at Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s assertion that the strikes constitute “clear grounds for impeachment.”
READ :New York, California House Dems Join GOP To Thwart Trump Impeachment Over Iran Strikes
“That’s absurd,” Dershowitz stated emphatically. He contended that the Constitution’s framers deliberately distinguished between a formal declaration of war by Congress and the President’s authority as commander-in-chief to take military action in defense of the nation. He pointed to James Madison’s insistence on amending the original draft of Article I, which initially granted Congress the power to “make war,” to provide the President with broader authority for defensive actions.
Dershowitz highlighted a long history of presidents, from both Democratic and Republican parties, taking military action without formal declarations of war or even congressional authorization.
He specifically cited Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who authorized significant military actions without similar outcries from their own party.
“This is hypocrisy on stilts and reflects the extreme partisan weaponization of the Constitution, even over foreign and military policies,” Dershowitz asserted.
He argued that Trump’s actions were “not different in kind or degree” from those of previous presidents. Dershowitz noted that the last congressional declaration of war was after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, with conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, and Panama all proceeding without such declarations. He suggested that formal declarations of war are unlikely to occur again, and that even “hybrid resolutions” authorizing limited military action, which Congress has adopted since World War II, are not explicitly authorized by the Constitution and likely lack legal weight.
READ: Most Democrats Say No To Latest Attention-Seeking Trump Impeachment Attempt
Dershowitz also downplayed the legal ramifications of the Democratic protests, stating that “all this handwringing on the left will come to nothing.” He explained that courts, particularly the Supreme Court, are generally reluctant to intervene in executive decisions concerning military actions.
While acknowledging that the wisdom of Trump’s decision as a matter of policy remains open for debate, Dershowitz firmly defended the President’s constitutional authority.
“A president should not be required to show his hand before ordering a surprise military attack of the kind,” he argued, referring to the “surgical, one-off bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities.”
He concluded by stating that Congress is well within its rights to hold hearings to assess the President’s actions. However, he maintained that “only hypocritical Democrats, and hard-left radicals afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome will argue that what Trump did was unconstitutional or unlawful. It was not.” Dershowitz affirmed that President Trump “surely had the power to make that decision if he deemed it in the best interests of the country.”
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
