Courtesy | Unsplash

Professor of History Brad Birzer has done a service by bringing up the issue of the constitutionality of the recent U.S. strikes in Iran. I do not think, however, that his reading of the Constitution is correct. 

The Constitutional Convention, after much debate, opted for a unitary executive. As Alexander Hamilton later explained in “The Federalist,” the aim was “energy in the executive,” which was regarded as essential to good government. What was required was, he said, “decision, secrecy, and dispatch,” and everyone understood that Congress was incapable of that. 

We must keep in mind that a declaration of war is not what initiates a war. It is merely a recognition that a state of war already exists. It is not the declaration that authorizes a president to intervene. It is the attack or the threat of attack. 

John Adams understood this. He conducted an armed conflict with France from 1798 to 1800, and he never sought a declaration of war from Congress. Thomas Jefferson dispatched a series of expeditions against the Barbary pirates in the period stretching from 1801 to 1805 without seeking a declaration of war or authorization from Congress. When James Madison, in turn, came up against the Barbary pirates, he sought from Congress a declaration of war but was not successful. That did not stop him. 

What would have stopped Adams, Jefferson, and Madison was a denial by Congress of funds. The issue of legality came before the Supreme Court in 1800, which unanimously decided in Bas v. Tingy that the conflict between the United States and France during the Adams administration had been an “imperfect war” and that France, in the absence of a formal declaration of war, had nonetheless been an “enemy.” 

We must remember the words of Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, who once observed that the Constitution is not “a suicide pact.” We have been at war with the Islamic Republic of Iran since Nov. 4, 1979, when the diplomats at the American embassy were made hostages. Repeated attempts have been made in subsequent years to reach a lasting settlement. But they have all failed. “Death to America” has been the slogan of Iran’s rulers for 47 years, and our demise has been their aim. To deny the president the discretion to operate in such circumstances with “decision, secrecy, and dispatch” is to render our country’s defense impossible. 

There is a check that can be deployed if the discretion left to the president within our constitutional order is abused: Congress can cut off the requisite funds, and it can impeach, try, and remove the executive from office. There is nothing unconstitutional about what President Donald Trump has done. The real question is whether, at this time and these circumstances, the attack on Iran was prudent. That is well worth pondering. Its constitutionality is not.

Paul A. Rahe is a professor of history at Hillsdale College.