1. United States
2. Pa.
3. Letter

Did you happen to watch CNN’s interview of Pennsylvania’s Senator Fetterman this morning? The Senator challenged America to READ the War Powers Act as he contends tRump is well within his Article II Constitutional authority as well as the aforementioned Act to initiate hostilities without Congressional authorization. I HAVE read the Act (and included it below). I vehemently disagree with the “Demo-publican” Senator. The Act CLEARLY allows a President to initiate hostilities prior to Congressional authorization (but notification within 48 hours of initiation of unilateral military action) when foreign hostile intent or action against US personnel and/or interests are IMMINENT. Unfortunately, the Act does NOT define “imminent”. How would YOU define “imminent”? The Cambridge Dictionary defines imminent as an adjective meaning “(especially of something unpleasant) likely to happen very soon”. Unfortunately it also fails to quantify “very soon”. Logically, “imminent” implies that something (“especially unpleasant”) was previously unanticipated but has suddenly or recently become a likely event that will probably occur in the near future. Yes, I know - I too have failed to accurately quantified “in the near future”. So let me try to prove the negative. Senator Fetterman cited Iran’s extensive offensive missile capability’s “imminent” danger to US personnel and/or interests in the area to satisfy the President’s use of the War Powers Act’s authority to initiate hostilities in the absence of Congressional concurrence. Has there been ANY change in Iran’s missile capability that has increased the danger proximate to the US? Has Iran recently developed/deployed a new missile exposing US elements to more “imminent” danger? Has Iran even increased its verbal threat to use its missiles against the US? The answer to ALL of those questions is absolutely “No”. So the Senator ALSO cited Iran’s continued effort to enrich uranium as an additional exception that allows invocation of the Act without Congressional affirmation. Unfortunately, the same assessment of any “imminent” change in Iran’s enrichment activities applies here as it does to changes in Iran’s missile capabilities. NO “imminent” change. So the Senator’s support of President tRump’s misuse of the Act is egregiously incorrect. His misguided attempt at bipartisan cooperation “across the aisle” is commendable but woefully misplaced in this case. tRump is dangerously ignoring the Constitution and various federal statutes AND Supreme Court decisions. As long as the Republican-controlled Congress abandons its Constitutional duties described in Article II, Section 4 and members like Senator Fetterman seem to pursue partisan compromise over their legislative responsibilities the logical checks and balances are impotent against tRump.)