The Commander-in-Chief is authorized to be the Commander-in-Chief without consent of Congress

If your argument to the above is that the Constitution does not spell out the above military deployment presidential authorization, consider that in no specific words does the Constitution also demand "separation of powers" in the government, yet that is clearly the case. Nor does it guarantee "privacy" of individuals or groups, yet such is permitted. In actual fact, it does not even declare "separation of church and state," even though Tommy Jefferson, who popularized the concept, was separated from both church and state when the Constitution was approved and ratified.

It does not even have, apparently, an adequate definition of a "citizen."

Congress can replace president at any time, and thus remove his title. But Trump doesn't need approval of Congress controlled by Trump. It is even better that he didn't ask approval, because he would get it and even look good while at it because war would seem more legal.

This specific war is a violation of international law which USA helped make and vowed to follow.

So this is just an example of "rules for you but not for me", where international law somehow applies to Iran who is defending itself, but not applying to USA illegal invader by international law.

But since international law clearly doesn't matter anymore, Trump has nothing to justify war with because international law is basis for justified war as well.

No, Congress cannot "replace president at any time, and thus remove his title." Even by impeachment by the House, and subsequent conviction by the Senate, Congress does not "replace" the president, as if they had a choice in that replacement by naming a party to replace the convicted president. Not how it works. All Congress is authorized to do is to impeach, and convict. No verbiage exists giving Congress choice of replacement. Congress must bow to the presidential order of succession specific to vacating the office, Article II, Section 1, clause 7: the presidential office "shall devolve on the Vice President." Subsequent, lower level federal law offered a full list of succession, if needed due to potential incapacity of the VP.

No, it is not "even better that he didn't ask approval..." The president is not required to ask approval. If the president intends full-scale war, he must ask Congress. But, if it is a a limited engagement [less than 60 days] he only need advise Congress within 48 hours of launching the exercise. The president need not worry about the action "seem[ing] more legal" because his legality is set in stone already, There is seldom a condition of degrees of legality. That would be a condition of the effort to impeach, whether a president's actions rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors;" a decision to which the House must arrive to proceed with articles of impeachment.

No, it is not "This specific war is a violation of international law which USA helped make and vowed to follow" because the ICC has no jurisdiction over the USA and never has.

No, it is not "where international law somehow applies to Iran who is defending itself, but not applying to USA illegal invader by international law" because, Again, the ICC has no jurisdiction over the USA and never has.

Therefore, your conclusion is a non sequitur.

"undocumented" according to whom? I guarantee documentation exists. That you do not know about is, to me, precisely the point. There is such a thing as "classified" documentation; yeah? I'll also guarantee that Melania's panties are not "classified" documents, but Biden's FBI was as clueless as SloJo, himself. To SloJo, "classified" means he has the right to sniff it.

Blimey, any one can knock up a document in under 5 minutes.

When push comes to shove, constitutions, laws (local or international) and documents become irrelevant clap trap.

Therefore a hypocritical nuclear super power can do just what the fuck it wants to do.

So knock up some documents and some medals and be thankful that Donald and his mate Ben are saving the World for us.

No, Congress cannot "replace president at any time, and thus remove his title." Even by impeachment by the House, and subsequent conviction by the Senate, Congress does not "replace" the president, as if they had a choice in that replacement

You dont understand the meaning of words.

"Replace" and "choose to replace with" arent same things.

Yes, congress can remove your beloved leader, and then your beloved leader would be replaced by someone else as a result.

So congress can replace him, just cant choose who to replace him with.

the only good thing out of all of this is that gold price will skyrocket.

No human is illegal, and no war is illegal.

Especially on stolen land.

The Constitution does not contain every clause of U.S. law blah blah blah,

There are five primary "rules of thumb to live by" which are an important guide to success in life, they are:

1. Never try to eat anything larger than your head.
2. Never play poker with a guy named after a city.
3. Don't tug on Superman's cape, don't spit into the wind, don't pull the mask off that old lone ranger, and don't mess around with Jim
4. When someone claims to be an expert because they wrote a book on the subject, if the book was published at Kinko's, they aren't really an expert.
5. Never take legal advice from a guy named Fauxlaw, Fakelaw, Liarlaw, or Fraudlaw.

Despite Fauxlaw's blah blah blah, the actual fact of the matter is that the US Constitution is very explicit about the separation of war powers, and yes, Article II, Section 2 says the President serves as the Commander in Chief of the military. But the reason that is labelled Article II is that right before that, what Fauxlaw missed is an Article I that should be read also. Article I, Section 8 give congress sole power to declare war, raise and support armies, make rules for the military, and "call forth the Militia".

Consequently, because the president acted unilaterally and lawlessly — without congressional authorization and absent any imminent threat to the United States, the current war in the Middle East is unconstitutional and illegal.

Unfortunately, the legality of the war is irrelevant because Trump also has the best Supreme Court money can buy, and his Supreme Court has granted President Trump absolute immunity for actions within his core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for all official acts. His Supreme Court has therefore granted Trump full authority to ignore the law and the Constitution with its constitutional checks and balances, allowing him to implement his promised authoritative regime and dictatorship. Consequently, Trump has repurposed the Constitution and now uses it for toilet paper.

As with all of Fauxlaw’s deceptive misrepresentations, another important rule of thumb is to “watch his eyes because his feets are dancing” and just ignore the MAGA lies he tells.

In the end, the current war in the Middle East is not supported by the Constitution, Congress, or the American people, consequently, it is not actually this country’s war, it is Donald Trump’s personal war, utilizing Donald Trump’s personal military, authorized by Donald Trump’s personal Supreme Court. 

Didn't Iran declare the elimination of your country 47 years ago? I don't recall Iran consulting your Congress to do so...

Didn't stop Iran from killing your US troops either.

Now Rubio is blaming Israel for attacking Iran thus forcing America to defend itself as a consequence of Israel’s actions.

 thus forcing America to defend itself as a consequence of Israel’s actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Satan

"The U.S. hasn’t been able to eliminate the Islamic Republic in 47 years, and it won’t be able to do so now."

-Ali Hosseini Khamenei (19 April 1939 – 28 February 2026)

It mentions all three Satans Great Satan America, little Satan Israel and lesser Satan Soviet Union. You got your religion for social media.

So congress can replace him

No, you entirely miss my point. "So congress can..." has naught to do with presidential replacement. Replacing the president happens totally without congressional act or involvement. It's exactly like the president not having squat to do with amending the Constitution. The president does not even sign amendments, when they are approved by Congress and ratified by the States. That's my point.

Didn't Iran declare the elimination of your country 47 years ago? I don't recall Iran consulting your Congress to do so...

Didn't stop Iran from killing your US troops either.

You don't understand, this is a military attempt to change the ruling regime, you know, like what we did in Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, the goal was to remove the Taliban, 20 years later, after over 4,000 Americans were killed and over 20,000 were wounded, and we had spent over 2 trillion dollars, the Taliban was in charge.

But this time there is the concept of a plan, which Trump has stated succinctly as "Iran protestors should overthrow the government". So, as soon as the protestors defeat the Iranian military, this will be a successful conflict.

It is presumed that the victorious protestors will replace the regime with a democracy, and they will need a constitution for that. Trump has already told them they can have ours since we aren't using it anymore.

Donald Trump’s personal war, 

blah, blah, blah.

"War" is not, legally, a generic term. It has very specific definition. We euphemistically speak of "war" when military conflicts occur, but, relative to the law of the United States, specifically, only Congress declares "war." All wars are military conflicts, but the reverse is not true. Not a single military conflict in which the US has engaged since WWII has been a "war," including not Midnight Hammer of 2025, and the current Epic Fury both against Iran, is legally called a war.

If your Congress votes to declare war, it will pressure the president to use the military to install a puppet government in Iran. When Congress formally declares war, it’s a symbolic escalation and not just a legal matter. It tells the public and the world: this war is total conflict, and not resolvable with limited deterrence measures or compromise.

I don't think your president wants to go down that policy route, and seems to be willing to work with a variety of people who may emerge as the next leader of Iran. In this case, ironically, declaring war would realistically limit his policy options on how to handle Iran.

But if the goal is to just fuck Trump and Americans don't care about the cost, then total war would make absolute sense.

Trump has already told them they can have ours since we aren't using it anymore.

That's true in sanctuary cities and states that ignore the Supremacy Clause of your Constitution, but that's a minority in your country. Most States and cities respect the Constitution and Federal laws, such as immigration laws. Most States abide by Article II, Section 3.

Donald Trump’s personal war, 

blah, blah, blah.

"War" is not, legally, a generic term. It has very specific definition. We euphemistically speak of "war" when military conflicts occur, but, relative to the law of the United States, specifically, only Congress declares "war." All wars are military conflicts, but the reverse is not true. Not a single military conflict in which the US has engaged since WWII has been a "war," including not Midnight Hammer of 2025, and the current Epic Fury both against Iran, is legally called a war.

So, you are saying that when Trump has repeatedly claimed that he has "ended 7 wars" since he took office, he is just telling another bald-faced lie.

Orange faced lie.

Though in Donald's fantasy world I don't think that he would recognise a lie even if it smacked him in his orange face with a giant falafel.

Trouble is, half the US population is similarly deluded...And would happily lick the chick peas and herbs of his grinning pseudo-arse.

I call it that because it regularly exudes verbal diarrhoea.

Are you licking the peas off of Starmer's arse too? He joined in with the "new war with Iran" as well.

Starmer is obviously licking peas out of Trump's asshole by doing so in your pea-brained world.

Or maybe reducing complex issues into pea-sized bits is the result of said pea thinking.

Peas may have unpopular opinions, but when shat out, they never lie.

No Opinion is a Lie on stolen Land, or stolen pea-gardens for that matter.

Orange faced lie.

I think humanity is imminent danger because of Trump/MAGA's lies.

AI Google search...' Prominent examples, particularly regarding US involvement, include the Vietnam War (Gulf of Tonkin incident) and the 2003 Iraq War (alleged weapons of mass destruction).'..

My 7th grade science teacher predicted that WW 3 would begin in the middle east.

AI Google search..' Based on reports from February 2026, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stated that Russian leader Vladimir Putin has "already started" a de-facto World War III by invading Ukraine'...

You should keep eating your McHappy meals and believe Iran's Theocracy doesn't really mean death to America, nor does it really plan on making a nuclear bomb or an ICBM.

Those are the lies you need to swallow along with your McHappy Meal.

My 7th grade science teacher predicted that WW 3 would begin in the middle east.

That was likely true before last week.

Based on reports from February 2026, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stated that Russian leader Vladimir Putin has "already started" a de-facto World War III by invading Ukraine'...

Funny how Ukraine believes its war over who gets to control the Russian-speaking regions in the Donbas is a world war. In their own world, I suppose.

No such thing as stolen land.

Just various people moving about on a speck of cosmic dust somewhere in a vast Universe.

And stealing is a concept relative to owning, and no one or no thing actually own fuck all.

And in terms of Earth Time, people have been kicking around their local patch for a comparative moment or two.

And so we label ourselves accordingly.

Obviously, I was mirroring the satire in your previous post.

Those are the lies you need to swallow along with your McHappy Meal.

..' Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed '...Mao Setung{?}

Nobody knows how far humanity is going to make it. Its been 80 years since first atomic bomb and war became obsolete.

The peacekeepers only is a strategy that works, until one goes off somewhere.

AI..Google ...' AI Overview

Nine countries possess nuclear weapons: Russia, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea. Together, they hold an estimated 12,100 to 13,000 nuclear warheads, with Russia and the USA holding nearly 90% of the total.'...

My motto is all-for-one and one-for-all, as the only longer term lasting strategy for humanity, with the least amount of sufferring for all.

I heard David Bohm state it a differrent way...each individual for all and all for each individual.

War = hell > sufferring of worst kind? Who is the imminent danger to others?

Humanity has been walking a tight rope of nuclear annihilation since sometime after mass-production of hydrogen weapons.

It was The Founder, who stole McDonalds from the McDonald brothers. In last comments of the movie, there was a quote by him saying, it is not a dog eat dog world out there, it is a rat eat rat world.

Nobody knows how far humanity is going to make it. Its been 80 years since first atomic bomb and war became obsolete.

It's been about a week since the dreams of a first atomic bomb in the hands of a suicidal cleric became obsolete.

But don't let that stop you from malnutrition from the inside out with your McHappy meal.

Humanity has been walking a tight rope of nuclear annihilation since sometime after mass-production of hydrogen weapons

You would be surprised to learn how modern food causes decay at the atomic level.

No lunch codes needed if you have the McHappy Meal app installed.

Where the surplus nation's people go wrong is:

They emotionally live in fear of macro risks

while behaviorally neglecting the immediate and imminent micro realities.