Was Trump's order to strike Iran constitutional? Bay Area experts weigh in on what happens next
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Was this strike on Iran a violation of the U.S. Constitution? It depends upon who you ask.
Some Republicans were quick to rally around the president, saying Iran was warned.
We spoke with some legal experts and have reaction from some of the Bay Area's congressional members.
President Donald Trump's decision to bomb three nuclear sites in Iran has local Bay Area elected officials raising concerns.
RELATED: US inserts itself into Israel's war with Iran, strikes 3 Iranian nuclear sites
East Bay Congresswoman Lateefah Simon issued a statement, which read in part: "Donald Trump's bombing of Iran is lawless, dangerous, and immoral. This kind of power, wielded without accountability, puts off all of us, our American troops and American families alike, in danger."
"There is certainly past precedence of presidents using force without congressional authorization. This has been done by almost every president I can think of over the last 40 years or so," said George Bisharat, emeritus professor of Law at UC Law San Francisco.
Bisharat said Trump's attack on Iran is a clear violation of international law -- and likely a violation of U.S. law. Article I of the Constitution grants congress the sole power to declare war. Article II designates the president as Commander-in-Chief, a role often understood to involve leading a military operation after Congress has declared war.
"I suppose one could take position that war is only war when it is formally declared. But I don't think anybody around the world will really accept that definition. Yes, it's war. When you attack another country, and use military force against it, that's war," Bisharat said.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, former speaker of the House, wrote on X: "Tonight, the President ignored the Constitution by unilaterally engaging our military without Congressional authorization."
Following the attack, South Bay Congressman Ro Khanna tweeted that representatives need to return to DC to vote on a war resolution he co-authored to "prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war."
"Most polling shows the majority of the nation did not want the United States to get involved at all, let alone further involved, in the Israel and Iran conflict. So, it is quite historical to see a president really disregard public opinion in such a way, when it comes to war," said Nolan Higdon, professor of History and Media Studies, UC Santa Cruz.
Higdon said Congress has been moving toward recognizing greater executive authority over the past few decades.
"This has been a serious problem in the United States for the last 50 years, really dating back to the Vietnam War. As the Vietnam War came to a close, Congress tried to reassert power with the War Powers Act," he said.
However, Higdon said there are loopholes when it comes to the president's use of power. For example, by not declaring a war, it's a conflict. And that presidents can argue they had to act, and the criteria to prove that they had to act can be subjective.
VIDEO: President Donald Trump addresses nation after US strikes on Iran
Still, Higdon states, even if Congress were to act now, it could make a difference.
"Who knows how Iran will react if it saw congress taking away the president's power to engage in this. It could move this onto a more peaceful direction," Higdon said.
"At this point, the people are with the regime, it appears. But if this goes on longer, they may not be so. So, there is a calculation that government in Iran has to make," said Lisette Poole, a retired journalism professor at Cal State East Bay who spent more than 25 years covering the Middle East for the Associated Press and the London Times. "As for the rest for the Middle East, I think they are holding their breathe."
Poole added that the U.S. military has been training for this type of attack for decades.
"And, I think that's what President Trump is trying to highlight -- because he said in his speech -- that these are the targets that had been chosen," she said.
Poole suggests says Iran has limited options: to come to the negotiating table, which is what it did before Israel began bombing Iran, or to continue this war at a time when Iran's economy is near collapse and the current government faces low approval ratings.
Poole also raises concerns about possible nuclear fallout from three sites that were bombed due possible radiation leaks.
Meanwhile, Bisharat said, despite not knowing the full extent of the damage from U.S. bombing, there will likely be consequences.
"It is very clear that what we have now done by attacking Iran, is incentivizing it to seek nuclear weapons. Those countries that do have nuclear weapons, such as North Korea, don't get attacked," Bisharat said.
