WATCH! Bernie Cries Iran Strikes ‘Unconstitutional!’ But History Says He’s Wrong

Democrats Cry ‘Unconstitutional’ Over Iran Strike—But Presidential Military Action Isn’t New

A chorus of outrage erupted across the Left as news broke that President Trump had ordered a targeted military strike on three nuclear sites in Iran. Bernie Sanders took the stage mid-rally to call the action “grossly unconstitutional,” while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive voices quickly echoed the same narrative: Trump had no right to authorize military force. But here’s the reality—what Trump did has been done by nearly every modern president, and the Constitution, as well as federal law, supports it under certain conditions.

Article I vs. Article II: What the Constitution Actually Says

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war (Article I, Section 8). However, Article II, Section 2 designates the president as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. This means that while Congress must formally declare war, the president has broad authority to direct the military in defense of U.S. interests without waiting for approval—especially in emergencies or situations involving imminent threats. The Founders intended a balance, not a paralysis. In practice, the balance has tilted toward the Executive Branch in nearly every conflict since World War II.

The War Powers Resolution: A Legal Framework for Action

Passed in 1973 after the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution allows the president to engage in military action without congressional authorization for up to 60 days—so long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours. Trump’s Iran strike, if it followed this process, would be legally consistent with that framework. It’s also important to note that Congress has never successfully enforced the War Powers Act against a sitting president. Presidents from both parties have routinely used this authority to take short-term military action around the world.

Historical Precedent: Democrats Did the Same—and Worse

President Obama ordered more than 2,800 drone strikes without a single new war declaration. He bombed Libya in 2011 without even seeking congressional approval. President Clinton launched sustained airstrikes in Iraq and Yugoslavia. President Carter attempted a military rescue in Iran. President Biden himself ordered airstrikes in Syria and Iraq in 2021 and 2022. None of these actions prompted cries of “unconstitutional” from Bernie Sanders or AOC. The silence was deafening. Now that it’s Trump, suddenly it’s a constitutional crisis.

Targeting Iran’s Nuclear Infrastructure Is a Defensive Act

If the intelligence community provided evidence of an imminent threat to American forces or allies, the president has a duty to act. Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium and hostile actions in the region—particularly its attacks on shipping routes, proxy militias, and threats against Israel—create a legitimate national security concern. A targeted strike on military assets or nuclear infrastructure falls well within the boundaries of both past precedent and presidential authority, especially under the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), which are still active and have been used as justification for strikes across the Middle East.

The Real Hypocrisy: It’s Only ‘Unconstitutional’ When Trump Does It

Let’s be clear: This isn’t about constitutional law—it’s about political theater. The Left had no problem when Barack Obama dropped bombs across half the globe or when Joe Biden authorized strikes in Syria. But the moment Donald Trump exercises the same authority with a firmer hand, the outrage machine kicks into overdrive. The Democratic Party isn’t concerned with the Constitution—they’re concerned with power and narrative control. And this time, it’s painfully obvious.