Thread by @DavidAFrench

War powers/law of armed conflict Twitter leaves a bit to be desired. So--in the aftermath of Biden's strikes--here's a quick legal explainer on the different kinds of military actions and the different constitutional/legal justifications, in case you're interested. /1

First, it's important to remember that presidents of both parties have largely ignored the Constitution and have stretched their Article II commander-in-chief powers up to and past the breaking point. So this thread is about what should be, not what is. /2

Presidents SHOULD seek congressional approval before initiating hostilities against foreign regimes/entities not engaged in active hostilities against the U.S. Examples--Obama attacking the Gaddafi regime, Trump attacking Assad regime. /3

HOWEVER, presidents do have inherent authority to order to troops in the field to take actions to defend themselves against hostile entities who have attacked American forces. Examples -- Trump hitting Soleimani, Biden bombing pro-Iran militias yesterday. /4

For example, here's what I wrote in Time after Trump's attack against Soleimani. /5 time.com/5759007/trumps…)

But here's a problematic gray area--how much should American deployments continue to rely on the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force? It's past time for Congress to revisit, revise, and update existing authorizations to reflect present challenges. /6

But the topline conclusions are clear--presidents should seek authorization for new offensive military operations, but presidents have the right to order troops to defend themselves, and we need new authorizations for existing operations. /end