Before Donald Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear sites in Iran, he was warned that, to quote Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, the Constitution does not permit the president “to unilaterally commit an act of war” against a nation that hasn’t first struck America. After the attack, Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland declared Trump’s actions “a clear violation of our Constitution—ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war.” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York stated, “It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.”
在唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）下令轰炸伊朗的核遗址之前，他被警告说，要引用肯塔基州的代表托马斯·马斯西（Thomas Massie），宪法不允许总统“单方面对一个没有首先袭击美国的国家进行战争行为”。袭击发生后，马里兰州的参议员克里斯·范·霍伦（Chris van Hollen）宣布特朗普的行动“明显违反了我们的宪法，要求只有国会有权宣战。”纽约的代表亚历山大·奥卡西奥·科尔特斯（Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez）说：“这绝对是弹each的理由。”
The judgment that neither the Constitution; nor the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law meant to clarify and limit when the president can wage war; nor any bygone authorization to use military force, such as the one passed after 9/11, permitted the attack is one I share. But I don’t just lament the dearth of a congressional vote out of concern for constitutional law. I also fear that bypassing Congress weakens American democracy.
宪法都不是宪法的判断；战争权力决议也不是1973年的法律，旨在澄清和限制总统何时发动战争；我没有任何授权使用军事力量的人，例如9/11之后通过的军事力量，允许我分享袭击。但是，由于对宪法的关注，我不仅为国会投票的匮乏感到遗憾。我也担心绕过国会会削弱美国民主。
Recall the last time that the United States began a war this consequential: George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Prior to invading, on October 10, 2002, Bush secured an authorization to use military force from Congress by wide margins in both chambers.
回想一下美国上一次发动战争的结果：乔治·W·布什（George W. Bush）入侵伊拉克。在入侵之前，2002年10月10日，布什获得了两次会议厅的巨大利润率使用国会军事力量的授权。
Even though the Iraq invasion was a mistake—something I have long believed—American democracy was better off for those votes, and not just because the Constitution assigns the war power to Congress. Debating the matter in the House and Senate helped educate lawmakers and the public about the arguments for and against the war, and left a record of who made claims that later proved incorrect. Prior to the vote, citizens could lobby their representatives, allowing for more participation in the process. And afterward, citizens could hold members of Congress accountable for their choices, not only in the next election but for the rest of the careers of everyone who cast a vote.
即使伊拉克入侵是一个错误 - 我长期以来一直相信 - 美国民主国家对这些投票的态度更好，而不仅仅是因为宪法将战争权力分配给国会。在众议院和参议院辩论此事帮助教育立法者和公众就战争和反对战争的争论进行了教育，并留下了谁发出的声称后来被证明是不正确的。在投票之前，公民可以游说其代表，从而允许更多参与该过程。之后，公民不仅在下次选举中，而且对所有投票的每个人的职业生涯都可以要求国会议员对自己的选择负责。
Government by the people demands opportunities to mete out such consequences. And as voters soured on Iraq, the ability to vote out members of Congress who approved the war provided a civic outlet for dissent. Just prior to the 2006 midterms, the Pew Research Center reported that “Iraq has become the central issue of the midterm elections. There is more dismay about how the U.S. military effort in Iraq is going than at any point since the war began more than three years ago. And the war is the dominant concern among the majority of voters who say they will be thinking about national issues, rather than local issues, when they cast their ballot for Congress this fall.” Pro–Iraq War senators including Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and George Allen of Virginia lost races to anti–Iraq War challengers.
人民政府需要机会来消除这种后果。随着选民对伊拉克的恶化，批准战争的国会议员投票的能力为异议提供了一个公民渠道。就在2006年中期之前，皮尤研究中心报道说：“伊拉克已成为中期选举的中心问题。对于三年前战争开始以来，美国在伊拉克的军事努力如何进行。战争是在战争开始以来的任何时候。战争是在大多数选民中占主导地关注的人，他们将在当地问题上，而不是当地问题，而不是当地的问题，因为他们在国会上投掷了这一范围。伊拉克战争参议员，包括宾夕法尼亚州的里克·桑托勒姆（Rick Santorum）和弗吉尼亚州的乔治·艾伦（George Allen），输给了反伊拉克战争挑战者。
In 2008, Hillary Clinton likely would have defeated Barack Obama, who spoke out against the invasion as an Illinois state senator, in the Democratic presidential primary but for her Senate vote for the Iraq War. And John McCain’s vote for the war hung over him in that general election. Later, Senator Bernie Sanders’s star would rise in part because he could point back to the vote he cast against the war. All told, voters in hundreds of electoral contests spanning years, if not decades, cast ballots in part based on information gleaned from that 2002 vote.
2008年，希拉里·克林顿（Hillary Clinton）可能会击败巴拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama），后者在民主党总统初选中反对以伊利诺伊州参议员的身份反对入侵，但她的参议院投票给伊拉克战争。约翰·麦凯恩（John McCain）对这场战争的投票在那次大选中笼罩着他。后来，参议员伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）的明星部分是因为他可以指向他对战争的投票。总而言之，跨越数十年的选举比赛的选民在2002年投票中收集的信息部分进行了投票。
Yesterday, in contrast, a lame-duck president who will never again be accountable at the ballot box went to war with Iran. There was no deliberation and no ability for voters to lobby their congressional representatives, and voters will be unable to credit or blame members of Congress for the outcome, or at least not as fully as if all were on the record voting yea or nay.
相比之下，昨天，一位la脚的总统将永远不会在投票箱中负责，与伊朗交战。没有审议，选民没有能力游说他们的国会代表，选民将无法归功于国会议员的成果，或者至少没有完全好像所有人都在纪录的Yea或nay上一样充分。
Despite the early majorities that supported the Iraq War, the war’s long-term effect on American politics includes growing popular aversion to wars of choice and foreign interventions. Even so, though Obama and Trump aligned themselves with popular opinion and campaigned on promises to avoid such engagements, they have now both unilaterally launched wars of choice, in Libya and Iran, respectively, once they were in office.
尽管早期多数支持伊拉克战争，但战争对美国政治的长期影响包括对选择战争和外国干预措施的普遍厌恶。即便如此，尽管奥巴马和特朗普与大众意见保持一致，并在承诺避免这种参与的承诺方面保持了一致，但他们现在分别在利比亚和伊朗单方面发动了选择的战争，一旦他们上任。
Their unilateral actions deprived Americans of representation and the ability to hold their representatives accountable after the fact. And the trend of denying the public democratic channels to oppose war isn’t merely anathema to a self-governing republic; it is dangerous. In the long run, removing official channels for citizens to effect change can be radicalizing.
他们的单方面行动剥夺了美国人的代表性，并在事后负责其代表的能力。否认公共民主渠道反对战争的趋势不仅是对自治共和国的厌恶。这很危险。从长远来看，删除公民实施变革的官方渠道可能是激进的。
Perhaps it won’t prove so in this case, if all goes well. But if a large cohort of Americans comes to regard the attack on Iran as a blunder, how will that popular anger be channeled? The ideal answer would be the next election. Trump has made that less possible.
如果一切顺利，也许在这种情况下不会证明这一点。但是，如果大量的美国人开始将对伊朗的袭击视为失误，那么这种流行的愤怒将如何引发呢？理想的答案是下一次选举。特朗普使这可能降低了。
