You know, the self-proclaimed fiscal-responsability-law-and-order-family-values Guardians Of Pedophiles.

Down is up, losing is winning, depression is growth, and when the convicted felon is a star, they let him do it.

50 USC Ch. 33: WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33

I want to know what lunatic lawyer told him it would be "unconstitutional" for him to abide by the law.

I kinda doubt that even the nuttiest right-wingnut with a background in constitutional law would come up with this crap. I suspect he came up with this one out of his own "interpretation" of Trump as god emperor of the world, only constrained by his own "mind."


He doesn't have any sort of sensory apparatus known to man.

Every Presidential administration since it was passed has mostly followed it while holding that either some or all of it infringes on executive power or argued that they didn't need to follow it despite following it.

This article was my starting place. Interesting:
https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jol/2026/01/24/the-power-to-not-decide-implications-of-bakers-fifth-factor-for-war-powers-reform/

One thing that doesn't appear to have been asserted by anyone but the felon is that it is unconstitutional to seek congressional authorization. That is quite different from argument about where the line between congressional war powers and executive authority to act to defend against attack or threat "should" be, and whether the war powers resolution is an infringement.

Would be unconstitutional. Prior administrations worded it nicer and were more diplomatic about it, but their core belief was some or all of the War Powers resolution infringed on Executive power which means some or all of it is unconstitutional in their opinions. The article is right in that courts have been hesitant to weight on it. And the War Powers resolution is largely toothless. There is no enforcement mechanism. Congress's options are to cut funding, pass something that prohibits military action(which would be subject to a veto which they almost certainly would be unable to override), or impeach and remove the President. Unless courts decide to weigh in, there is no other way to enforce it.

... is a very different sort of statement from "I won't seek congressional authority as required under the war powers resolution because I think the resolution is an infringement on my executive authority" or even to claim "most legal scholars don't think I need to seek congressional authority in accord with the law because the law is an infringement on my powers."

After reviewing what the felon actually said, the summary statement that characterized what he said as "it is unconstitutional to seek congressional authority" strikes me as a bit of sane-washing. That is, an attempt to make sense of a bizarre word salad. Somebody noticed the very straightforward question and then picked out one thing that perhaps could have been considered a "response." In fact, what he said made absolutely NO sense at all.

Q: It's day 60. Are you going to seek congressional authorization for.."

Felon: "No other country has ever -- a -- done it. It's never been in -- as you know, most people consider it totally unconstitutional. Also we have a ceasefire, so that gives additional time. But no other country has done it. We're in the midst of a big victory. A victory like we haven't seen since Venezuela... "

He may be right just by that fact alone.