When Presidents Play War Games Without Permission Slip
A Constitutional Crises: Donnie-Not-Two-Weeks…
The TL;DR for Busy People
On Saturday, President Trump announced the U.S. had "completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan" with "all planes now outside of Iran air space."
Here's the thing that has some people's constitutional law textbooks spontaneously combusting: He didn't ask Congress first.
Let's Break This Down (But With More Nukes)
What happened: The U.S. military conducted airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan using what sources describe as B-2 stealth bombers. Think of it as the world's most expensive and terrifying delivery service.
The constitutional oopsie: Remember that dusty old document called the Constitution? It says Congress gets to declare wars, not presidents. The strictest reading of the Constitution suggests Trump, or any president, should go to Congress to declare war before attacking another country. But here we are, living in interesting times.
The political circus: Congressional leaders are reacting to Trump ordering strike attack on Iran, with some Republicans praising the move and some Democrats questioning the president's authority. Shocking, I know. Politicians having different opinions based on party lines. Who could have predicted this?
Trump spent years promising to keep America out of Middle East conflicts. Narrator: He did not keep America out of Middle East conflicts.
With Republican control of both chambers until at least 2026, "I don't see Congress getting involved" any time soon. So we have a separation of powers issue where one branch might not actually separate because they're all wearing the same team MAGA hats.
We're watching a real-time constitutional crisis unfold via Truth Social posts. The Founding Fathers are probably doing 360s in their graves faster than a B-2 bomber.
What This Actually Means (The Serious Bit)
Legally speaking: A War Powers Resolution would prohibit the "United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran." Some lawmakers are pushing for exactly this.
Practically speaking: We just escalated a regional conflict into something that could reshape the entire Middle East. Markets are jittery, oil prices are doing their volatility dance, and Iran now has to decide whether to retaliate or negotiate.
Constitutionally speaking: We're in uncharted waters where the executive branch is making war-level decisions without legislative approval, which is either:
A constitutional crisis, or
Just another Sunday in modern America
You decide which is scarier.
The Money Trail (Because It's Always About Money)
Those B-2 bombers? Each one costs about $2.1 billion. We just flew flying price tags across the world to drop Very Expensive Things on Other Very Expensive Things. Meanwhile, Congress will argue about whether this was legal while defense contractors check their stock prices.
The real question: Who pays for this? Spoiler alert:
It's you, the taxpayer, whether Congress authorized it or not.
What Happens Next
Option A: Congress does nothing because they're controlled by the same party, and we pretend this is all totally normal and constitutional.
Option B: Opposition lawmakers push War Powers Resolutions and maybe even impeachment proceedings, creating maximum political drama.
Option C: Iran responds, and we find out what happens when you poke a hornet's nest with a $2 billion stick.
Option D: All of the above, because 2025 apparently decided chaos was the vibe.
The Bottom Line
We just witnessed either:
A necessary action to prevent nuclear proliferation, or An unconstitutional act of war, or Both simultaneously that is modern American politics
Trump told Axios that "Israel is much safer now." Whether America is safer, whether this was legal, and whether Congress will actually do anything about it remains to be seen.
What we know for sure: The Middle East is more unstable, the Constitution is more ignored, and somewhere, a constitutional law professor is updating their syllabus to include "Truth Social as a medium for war declarations."
The real educational moment here isn't about foreign policy or military strategy. It's about how quickly democratic norms can evaporate when everyone decides the rules don't apply to them anymore.
And that, friends, is how republics die: not with a bang, but with a Truth Social post.
//Peace? or no Peace?
Donnie-Not-Two-Weeks…
🧩 Summary
✅ Claim verified: Trump did bomb Iran on June 22, 2025.
⚖️ Constitutional crisis: No congressional approval; likely grounds for legal and political pushback.
🚨 International escalation: Middle-East tensions raised; global markets unsettled.
⚠️ Ethically and legally contested: Questions remain about civilian harm and international law compliance.
🔭 Next steps: Watch for War Powers resolutions, impeachment efforts, Congressional funding limitations.
Key news on US–Iran strikes and constitutional debate
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/21/us-lawmakers-respond-us-attack-on-iran?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congress-members-split-over-us-attack-iran-2025-06-22/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/22/israel-iran-war-live-trump-says-us-has-attacked-nuclear-sites-in-iran-including-fordow?utm_source=chatgpt.com
🪨 The Most Dangerous Rock You’ve Never Heard Of
There’s a quiet new arms race going on. Not for nukes. Not for oil. For antimony. What’s that, you ask? Oh, just a boring gray metal that happens to be critical for making armor-piercing bullets, hypersonic weapons, solid-state batteries, and quantum computers. You know, the usual.
The Same People Who Brought You Iraq Are Back (And They Want Iran This Time)
Remember Iraq? You know, that little adventure where we were told Saddam had nukes, mushroom clouds were imminent, and we absolutely had to invade right now to save democracy? The one that killed over a million people and cost trillions while Halliburton got $18 billion in "reparations"?
The American Corruption Machine: A Beginner's Guide to Getting Fleeced
Remember when your biggest worry was whether politicians were lying about their campaign promises?
Update…
General constitutional principles The question of whether an action is
"Impeachable" solely because "
He didn't ask Congress first"
Is nuanced.
However, highlighting several scenarios:
That could potentially lead to impeachment proceedings due to a president's actions, especially if they are perceived as bypassing or undermining Congress or abusing executive power.
Here's an analysis of potentially impeachable actions, drawing from the provided texts, in the context of "not asking Congress first" or generally bypassing established procedures:
1. Actions that Bypass or Undermine Congressional Authority and Oversight:
Firing of Inspectors General (IGs) without cause or notice: The "Systemic Corruption and Influence Networks" That President Trump fired over a dozen IGs "without proper notice or cause" in early 2017, violating federal law and hampering oversight. Inspectors General are crucial for independent oversight, and their removal without following proper procedures or for reasons that suggest obstruction of justice or an attempt to avoid scrutiny could be considered an abuse of power.
While not directly about "asking Congress first," it's about undermining a congressionally mandated oversight function designed to check executive power.
Verifiable Fact: The firing of 17 IGs "with no notice and no explanations" violated federal law.
Withholding or Misusing Congressionally Appropriated Funds: Although not explicitly detailed as "not asking Congress first" The general principle applies. If a president uses funds in a manner not authorized by Congress, or withholds funds to exert political pressure (as was alleged in the first impeachment of President Trump regarding Ukraine aid),
it is a direct challenge to Congress's "power of the purse" (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7).
Rescinding Executive Orders that Combat Corruption without Congressional Input: That President Trump rescinded Executive Order 13770 (which restricted lobbying by former appointees) hours before leaving office.
President Biden then reinstated a stronger anti-corruption policy.
Trump Taking office again, The act of a president unilaterally changing ethics policies to potentially enable corruption without congressional consultation could be seen as an abuse of power
Verifiable Fact: President Trump issued Executive Order 13770 in 2017, which required ethics pledges and placed restrictions on lobbying by former appointees. He rescinded this order hours before leaving office.
Abuse of Office and Potential Emoluments Clause Violations:
The "Qatari Jet Scandal":
President Trump's alleged announcement to replace Air Force One with a private jet used by Qatar's royal family. claims this was a "gift" from the Qatari royal family. Accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State"
Is prohibited by the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) of the U.S. Constitution, unless Congress consents. If such an arrangement were made without congressional consent, it would directly violate a constitutional prohibition.
Verifiable Fact: The U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts or emoluments from foreign states without congressional consent.
The Trump Meme Coin:
The launch of a "meme coin" named "$TRUMP" by Donald Trump three days before taking office, alleging it was a "pump-and-dump" scheme. While the legality of such a venture for a private citizen is one issue, if a president or president-elect were to use their office, or the anticipation of holding office, to financially benefit from such a scheme, it could raise questions of abuse of office and conflict of interest, particularly if official actions (or anticipated actions) directly impacted the value of the asset. This isn't about "asking Congress first," but rather about self-enrichment while in or about to enter public office.
Verifiable Fact: Donald Trump launched a cryptocurrency "meme coin" named "$TRUMP" on January 17 2025.
Verifiable Claim (requires independent verification):
$TRUMP coin launched at just under $8.59 per token and rose to nearly $75 by January 19 after Trump promoted it on Truth Social. It further claims that over 810,000 crypto traders lost a combined $2 billion on $TRUMP and MELANIA coins, while Trump and his partners earned over $100 million in trading fees, increasing his net worth significantly.
Conclusion on Impeachability:
While the phrase "he didn't ask Congress first" isn't a direct constitutional ground for impeachment, actions taken by a president without congressional consultation or approval can become impeachable if they rise to the level of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
The highlighted scenarios where presidential actions, particularly those related to undermining independent oversight (like firing IGs), violating the Emoluments Clause, or engaging in alleged self-enrichment schemes while in or entering office, could be construed as abuses of power or breaches of public trust that would certainly cause "constitutional law textbooks spontaneously combusting"
And lead to serious considerations for impeachment.
The key is whether such actions are perceived as a fundamental betrayal of the presidential oath and the constitutional framework.
Again, their reply will simply be that the "libs" have long claimed moral superiority, while simultaneously running similar air campaigns under both Clinton and Obama.
The main rebuttal MAGA will make is that there are, of course, no American boots on the ground.
And that there were similar limited air campaigns carried out during the Clinton administration.