Democrats can still accomplish that goal, Lawfare Project attorney Gerard Filitti says, but they’re going to have to do it the hard way: Going the legislative route, then finding the votes to override a presidential veto.
The resolution directs the president to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities against Iran unless Congress formally authorizes military action or declares war.
It reasserts the constitutional role of Congress in deciding whether the United States enters or continues a war.
Republicans Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania), Tom Barrett (Michigan), Warren Davidson (Ohio) and Thomas Massie (Kentucky) sided with Democrats in the 215-208 vote.
Six other Republicans were not present for the vote.
The resolution is not expected to pass the U.S. Senate.
The vote occurred while inspectors general launched a joint review of the war, indicating the conflict has legally exceeded the 60-day limit for unauthorized hostilities set by the War Powers Act.
The White House says the resolution will not reach Trump’s desk.
There is a path to success for Democrats, Filitti said on American Family Radio Wednesday, but it requires big-picture planning.
Democrats would need to present legislation that addresses presidential conduct in all future wars, not just Trump’s war with Iran, he told show host Jenna Ellis.
“If this is about war powers and not the conflict in Iran, then it may be easier for Congress to find a veto-proof majority to come up with a new law that specifically restricts the president's ability to direct forces overseas in many circumstances. If they make it just about Iran or a specific conflict, it makes it harder to find that two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto,” he said.
The Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha, in 1983, ruled that Congress generally cannot exercise power over executive actions through a mechanism known as a legislative veto — where Congress attempts to overturn or direct executive action without passing a law through the normal constitutional process of bicameral passage and presidential presentment.
That makes the House resolution symbolic at best.
The resolution advanced in a recent Senate vote, 50-47, as Republicans Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rand Paul (Kentucky) and Bill Cassidy (Louisiana) voted with Democrats.
Cassidy recently lost a primary vote to a Trump-backed candidate.
That vote also relied on the absence of three other Republicans — John Cornyn (Texas), Tommy Tuberville (Alabama) and Thom Tillis (North Carolina).
Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Framers wanted the decision to move from peace to war to be made collectively, not by a single executive.
Article II names the president as commander-in-chief. He directs military operations once forces are deployed.
Since the Second World War, Congress has not formally declared war but has authorized use of force in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq.
It’s done neither for the ongoing Iran conflict.
House Speaker Mike Johnson told CNN, prior to Wednesday's vote, that a limit on Trump's powers may have a “very negative” impact on negotiations.
“I think it is a very dangerous prospect to take away from the administration and the commander-in-chief right now the ability to negotiate," Johnson said. "That’s what this does. It weakens us, our position, and our leverage in negotiation on the peace in that situation.
Filitti believes the war powers question will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court and that the justices will empower the executive branch in light of the realities of warfare in 2026.
“This is not 1776. You don't send the Navy slowly across the ocean in sailing ships. Attacks happen in the blink of an eye, and the president needs the flexibility to address them, preempt them, and respond to them without going through a laborious process of getting hundreds of members of Congress on board.
“There needs to be flexibility, and I think ultimately the Supreme Court is going to look at it in the same way,” he said.
