I am no fan of Hegseth, but.. . . . . To accuse him of starting a war without Congressional authorization seems to signal a remarkable lack of knowledge about history.
It seems forever that presidents (and Hegseth as part of rhe executive branch was acting for the president) have used the Constitutionally granted title of "commander in chief of the armed forces" to push America into wars. Is our collective memory so short that we have forgotten the early days of the wars in Korea and Vietnam?
The problem, I do believe, lies over and over again in the spineless abandonmenmt of Conggress to assert its power in this area. The vacuum so created is what has given presidents the dangerous proclivity for dragging America into wasteful and ill considered combat operations.
The fault lies, then, with a succession of Congresses which have failed to do the job conferred upon them by the Constitution.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. But I think you're arguing against a claim the story never actually makes.
Nowhere do we claim that Pete Hegseth personally started the war. The story explicitly states that the United States began military operations against Iran without new congressional authorization. Those are two very different statements.
And you're absolutely right about one thing: Congress has repeatedly failed to assert its constitutional authority over matters of war and peace. We make that very point.
But here's where we disagree.
The fact that previous presidents have bypassed Congress does not make the practice constitutionally unquestionable or excuse the people involved today.
Yes, the president is commander in chief. But Article I gives Congress the power to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted precisely because of concerns about executive overreach during conflicts like Korea and Vietnam. The boundaries of presidential authority remain disputed, but the title of commander in chief is not a blank check.
And holding Congress accountable does not mean giving the executive branch a free pass.
Hegseth is the Secretary of Defense. His leadership, military decisions, handling of sensitive information, and responsibility for civilian harm protections are legitimate subjects of congressional investigation, regardless of who ordered the war.
We can hold the president accountable, demand that Congress do its constitutional duty, AND scrutinize the Secretary of Defense. These responsibilities are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, that is the entire point of the essay.
The Constitution was designed to prevent unchecked concentrations of power, not to provide an endless game of political hot potato where everyone points at somebody else.
Past failures do not justify present failures. And nobody gets a free pass simply because Washington has been getting away with something for decades.
Accountability must apply to everyone, regardless of party, position, or title.
Impeachment and conviction would make him ineligible for Federal office for life.
I am no fan of Hegseth, but.. . . . . To accuse him of starting a war without Congressional authorization seems to signal a remarkable lack of knowledge about history.
It seems forever that presidents (and Hegseth as part of rhe executive branch was acting for the president) have used the Constitutionally granted title of "commander in chief of the armed forces" to push America into wars. Is our collective memory so short that we have forgotten the early days of the wars in Korea and Vietnam?
The problem, I do believe, lies over and over again in the spineless abandonmenmt of Conggress to assert its power in this area. The vacuum so created is what has given presidents the dangerous proclivity for dragging America into wasteful and ill considered combat operations.
The fault lies, then, with a succession of Congresses which have failed to do the job conferred upon them by the Constitution.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. But I think you're arguing against a claim the story never actually makes.
Nowhere do we claim that Pete Hegseth personally started the war. The story explicitly states that the United States began military operations against Iran without new congressional authorization. Those are two very different statements.
And you're absolutely right about one thing: Congress has repeatedly failed to assert its constitutional authority over matters of war and peace. We make that very point.
But here's where we disagree.
The fact that previous presidents have bypassed Congress does not make the practice constitutionally unquestionable or excuse the people involved today.
Yes, the president is commander in chief. But Article I gives Congress the power to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted precisely because of concerns about executive overreach during conflicts like Korea and Vietnam. The boundaries of presidential authority remain disputed, but the title of commander in chief is not a blank check.
And holding Congress accountable does not mean giving the executive branch a free pass.
Hegseth is the Secretary of Defense. His leadership, military decisions, handling of sensitive information, and responsibility for civilian harm protections are legitimate subjects of congressional investigation, regardless of who ordered the war.
We can hold the president accountable, demand that Congress do its constitutional duty, AND scrutinize the Secretary of Defense. These responsibilities are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, that is the entire point of the essay.
The Constitution was designed to prevent unchecked concentrations of power, not to provide an endless game of political hot potato where everyone points at somebody else.
Past failures do not justify present failures. And nobody gets a free pass simply because Washington has been getting away with something for decades.
Accountability must apply to everyone, regardless of party, position, or title.