Sept. 10, 2026 10:48 AM PT

To the editor: Guest contributor Erwin Chemerinsky argues today’s Republican Congress has “shown no willingness to stand up to” President Trump regarding the Iran war as the courts likewise remain mum (“Trump is waging an illegal, costly war in Iran and no one is stopping him,” Sept. 7). A sampling across administrations suggests this is more the norm than not. Consider this partial list of Democratic presidents who met little congressional scrutiny in the commitment of our military: Truman, the Korean War; Wilson’s interventions into Haiti and the Dominican Republic; Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs Cuba invasion; Clinton’s Balkan intervention; and Obama’s Libya strikes.

Congress did no better with Republican presidents: Taft, Nicaragua; McKinley, the Philippines; Nixon, Cambodia; Reagan, Lebanon and Grenada; and George H. W. Bush, Panama.

Complicating the picture, when Congress chimes in, often little good follows. Chemerinsky asks, ”How are we a nation under the rule of law if there is nothing to stop the president from violating the Constitution?” The question ought to be broader: What can Congress and the executive branch do better to assure that war serves the national interest in the first place and does not become a quagmire?

Given today’s Iran disaster, it is time for a serious rethink. One course is convocation of a commission composed of jurists, thoughtful former elected officials, policymakers, senior policy aides and relevant academics to look anew at how the country ought to weigh security and force. All should be mindful of James Madison’s admonition: “Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded.”

Bennett Ramberg, Los Angeles
This writer was a foreign affairs officer in the State Department Bureau of Political-Military Affairs in the George H. W. Bush administration.

..

To the editor: I am surprised at Chemerinsky’s recent op-ed. I have always respected his insight on legal matters. He is recognized as an expert on the Constitution. However, I do not believe that he has presented the complete issue on the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Congress avoided implementing the resolution several times since it was enacted. It passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Afghanistan in 2001 following 9/11 and again in 2002 against Iraq, bypassing the 1973 resolution. Congress did not evoke the 60-day withdrawal clause during these conflicts.

The Constitution gives Congress the right “to declare war” in Article 1. However, Article 2 states that the president is “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.” In addition, the War Powers Resolution has been challenged multiple times in court. The federal courts have refused to rule on its merits because the Constitution splits the powers between the president and Congress. Lawmakers have sued multiple times for ignoring the 60-day withdrawal clock, but every attempt has failed in court.

I thank Chemerinsky for his insight, but this op-ed appears to be focused on Trump and not the War Powers Resolution’s history.

Frank Deni, Lake Forest

..

To the editor: I agree with Chemerinsky’s contention that the Iran war is illegal. I disagree, however, with his implicit concession that the War Powers Resolution is constitutional.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that “Congress shall have the power … to declare war.” The language is indisputably prospective: The president may not order any act of war until Congress has issued a declaration. The War Powers Resolution is retrospective: It effectively tells the president, “Go ahead and start a war and we’ll let you know our view in 60 days.” The Constitution does not allow for this; ergo, it is unconstitutional.

Surely, if there is an attack or one that is imminently threatened (one or more missiles headed to the country), the president can — and should — act immediately, but that was not the situation here. Iran was engaging in no threatening acts that we know of and our own president claimed that the nuclear abilities of the country had been “obliterated” the previous July. The war was illegal on Feb. 28 and only a resolution of Congress can change that fact.

Joel Drum, Van Nuys

..

To the editor: Chemerinsky asked the question my friends and I have been asking for months: “Why are Republicans unwilling to stand up to the president to stop the war in Iran?”

I recently saw the play “Conscience,” which tells the story of Republican Sen. Margaret Chase Smith’s courageous stand on the Senate floor against Joseph McCarthy. She had little backing but pursued justice anyway.

Who are the Republicans who will stand and oppose Trump’s war — the war that has killed thousands and created both moral and economic havoc on virtually the entire world? When will they do their constitutional duty and protect both Americans and others from the fallout of this unnecessary and illegal war?

Sarah E. Adams, Rancho Palos Verdes