War Is Never Inevitable: Congress Must Reclaim Its Constitutional Role
By: Robert McDonald, Senior Legislative Researcher, A New Policy
“Wars are not acts of God. They are caused by man, by man-made institutions, by the way in which man has organized his society.” These words were spoken by Frederick Moore Vinson (1890-1953), former Chief Justice of the United States. Their meaning is simple but profound: war is not inevitable. War is the product of human decisions.
History often treats war as if it were a force of nature, something that erupts beyond the control of ordinary people or institutions. But wars are not earthquakes. They are not hurricanes. They are choices made by governments, leaders, and political systems. Some wars may be justified. Self-defense against aggression can be necessary. However, many wars arise not from necessity, but from political expediency, institutional inertia, ideological commitments, or the influence of powerful interests. When institutions lose their ability to resolve disputes through diplomacy, or when political incentives reward escalation rather than restraint, the result is predictable: violence becomes the default tool of policy.
But if institutions can help cause war, they can also help prevent it. Well-designed institutions can restrain leaders who might otherwise drag a nation into conflict. They can impose debate where there would otherwise be impulse. They can force accountability where there would otherwise be secrecy. In the United States, Congress is one of those institutions.
And in the case of the growing conflict between Israel, Iran, and the United States, In the past week, the conflict has already escalated dramatically, with the Trump administration launching strikes and Iranian missiles now crossing the region in response. Congress still possesses the constitutional authority to intervene, to slow the march toward the abyss and reassert the role the Constitution assigned to it.
Because war is not inevitable, peace may be imperfect, but death is final.
Congress’s Constitutional Responsibility
Two recent congressional measures attempt to reassert that authority. H.Con.Res. 38, introduced on June 17, 2025 by Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, and its Senate companion S.J.Res. 104, introduced on January 29, 2026 by Senator Tim Kaine, direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran unless those hostilities are explicitly authorized by Congress.
These resolutions are grounded in a basic constitutional principle that has increasingly been ignored in modern U.S. foreign policy. The Constitution is explicit: Congress, and only Congress has the power to declare war.
Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the authority:
To declare war
To raise and support armies
To provide and maintain a navy
To regulate the armed forces
The President, under Article II, serves as Commander in Chief, responsible for directing the military once war has been authorized. The structure was intentional. The framers of the Constitution had just fought a revolution against a monarch who could plunge his nation into war without democratic consent. They designed a system where the decision to initiate war would require deliberation by the representatives of the American people.
War would be difficult to start by design, but over the past seventy years, that system has steadily eroded.
The War Powers Resolution and the Expansion of Executive War
In 1973, following the trauma of the Vietnam War, Congress attempted to reassert its constitutional role by passing the War Powers Resolution. The law was designed to limit the President’s ability to commit U.S. forces to hostilities without congressional approval.
Under the War Powers Resolution:
The President must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent.
Military operations must end within 60 days unless Congress authorizes the action or declares war.
A 30-day withdrawal period is permitted to safely remove U.S. forces.
In theory, this framework preserves the President’s ability to respond quickly to emergencies while ensuring that sustained military operations require congressional approval. In practice, however, successive administrations of both parties have steadily expanded executive authority. Presidents have launched air campaigns, deployed forces, and conducted military operations under interpretations of existing authorizations or under claims of inherent executive power.
Congress, despite possessing the authority to intervene, has often chosen not to exercise it. The result is a system where the constitutional power to decide questions of war and peace has drifted away from the legislature and toward the executive branch.
Why These Resolutions Matter
The resolutions introduced by Khanna, Massie, and Kaine attempt to reverse that drift. Although the fighting has already started and spread across the region, these bills will force members to go on record for supporting this war or opposing it. If successful, it will force the President and Congress to seek authorization for the use of military force.
Iraq provides an example of both the dangers of a war of choice and the importance of presidents seeking authorization. Before the 2003 invasion, the Bush administration spent months making its case to the American people, to Congress, and to the international community. The administration argued its position in a State of the Union address, presented flawed intelligence claims publicly, and sought authorization from the United Nations. The United Nations ultimately rejected that authorization, but Congress still debated and voted on the issue, and the administration assembled a coalition of allies before launching the invasion and after receiving authorization from Congress
For Iran, there has been no case made to the American people, no acknowledgment that Congressional authorization actually matters, and no thought towards international law. This war is an American and Israeli war, not a coalition of American allies and regional countries, and one that supports Israeli interests at the expense of American interests. These resolutions also serve a purpose to force a public debate that has not occurred. If passed, the President would veto these resolutions, but that veto and each vote by each member is a message to the American people on where they stand on this war.
The Human Cost Behind Constitutional Principles
It is easy to treat constitutional debates as abstract legal disputes. But the consequences of these decisions are painfully real.
Every escalation carries the risk of lives lost:
American soldiers deployed to bases throughout the region;
Civilians in cities that become targets of retaliation or collateral damage;
Families of soldiers and civilians killed traumatized by loss;
Children hiding under tables as missiles and bombs fall overhead.
When governments treat war as an administrative tool rather than a last resort, those human costs multiply. Once war begins, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to control. History is filled with conflicts that leaders believed would be short, contained, and manageable. Few of them were.
This war is a choice. The United States faced no imminent threat, and diplomatic negotiations were reported to be progressing. The lesson Chief Justice Vinson captured decades ago remains true today: war is not inevitable. It is the result of decisions made by institutions and the people who operate them.
Congress still has the authority to slow those decisions down - if it chooses to use it:
It can demand debate.
It can force a vote.
It can ensure that the decision to send Americans into war reflects the will of the people they represent.
The question is not whether Congress has that power. The question is whether it will choose to use it. Because once war begins, the opportunity to prevent it is gone forever.
Peace may be imperfect.
But death is final.
