Are U.S. Strikes on Houthis Constitutional?
Joe Biden is the latest of a string of presidents to deny Congress its rightful role in war making.

Since January, the United States and its allies have been conducting strikes against the Houthis, a Yemen-based Islamist militant organization that has been attacking commercial ships in the Red Sea. These attacks, the Houthis claim, are a gesture of support for Hamas in its war against Israel. There have been no American casualties so far, but the attacks have caused major disruptions for one of the world's most important shipping routes.
"These attacks have endangered U.S. personnel, civilian mariners, and our partners, jeopardized trade, and threatened freedom of navigation," President Joe Biden declared in a January 11 statement. "I will not hesitate to direct further measures to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce as necessary."
Biden notified Congress of the strikes beforehand, but he didn't ask for authorization as Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution mandates. By ignoring this procedural requirement in the name of a broadly defined national interest, the president risks engaging the U.S. in a slow-burning, long-lasting conflict with little accountability and the looming possibility of escalation.
"Congress must engage in robust debate before American servicemembers are put in harm's way and before more U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent on yet another war in the Middle East," wrote a bipartisan coalition of nearly 30 lawmakers in late January. "No President, regardless of political party, has the constitutional authority to bypass Congress on matters of war."
Biden is the latest of a string of presidents to deny Congress its rightful role in war making. Congress issued its last official declaration of war over 80 years ago. Since then, presidents have relied on blank-check authorizations for the use of military force, which they stretch to justify operations well beyond the emergencies they were meant to address.
Biden claimed the strikes against the Houthis are compliant with the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which requires that the president notify Congress of any military action within 48 hours. But the coalition argued he can only legally "introduce U.S. forces into hostilities" after Congress declares war or issues "a specific statutory authorization," or in the event of "a national emergency when the U.S. is under imminent attack."
"We are not convinced that the circumstances of the U.S.'s strikes in Yemen meet the 'national emergency' criteria," wrote the lawmakers, "and we believe there was ample time to come to Congress for authorization before initiating these strikes."
Without a meaningful way to hold the president accountable for military adventurism, there's always the risk that the U.S. will become entrenched in yet another conflict without a narrowly defined reason to be there—or an attainable goal.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Houthis are not a government and engaging in what is essentially piracy on international trade. The executive would seem to have a bit more discretion in responding to those types of attacks on all of humanity.
Fiona seems to think that Congress voted on a formal declaration in The First Barbary War.
Not to defend Papa Joe by any means, but it seems to me that if some unaffiliated group gets to sail out in the middle of a shipping lane and start blowing shit up because Hamas or some other unaffiliated reason, the insistence that any/every nation on Earth make a formal declaration before dealing with them is anti-free-trade, pro-terrorist, pro-bureaucratic nonsense.
Jews, not Nazis are committing a holocaust in Gaza.
This video demonstrates how they carried it out.
It is the best compilation of evidence to date that October 7 was an inside job coordinated by Israel.
https://richardgage911.substack.com/p/new-documentary-on-gaza-october-7
Did the Jews do 9/11 as well? How about the Kennedy assassinations? Are their space lasers causing climate change?
Can’t refute the evidence eh?
There is no holocaust in Gaza. Hyperbole maybe... but no holocaust
It doesn’t surprise me that Jews are denying the holocaust they’re on trial for committing in the International Court of Justice.
Though the rest of the world has recognized it. No amount of propaganda will change the fact that Jews and their enablers will forever be pariahs.
Biden is funding the genocide making himself and the US complicit. He and bibi with his ministers along with everyone else enabling the genocide will dance on the gallows for committing crimes against humanity.
Your crutch, the term “antisemitism“ is defunct, used up, no more. Jews traded their bullshit victim gold card in for their holocaust in Gaza.
Netanyahu is responsible for telling the IDF to commit genocide by referencing the Jewish biblical genocide against women and children with the story of AMALEK. Clearly inciting genocide. With over 20,000 non combatant women and children intentionally targeted and killed and IDF soldiers on record rejoicing about it referencing amalek, the effect of Netanyahus instructions are clear.
Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant said Israel was fighting “human animals” and that they will be “starved of food and water” which Israel has done and continues to do.
Amichay Eliyahu, the minister for heritage, who suggested dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza; Israel isn’t supposed to have nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein was hung for crimes against humanity and he didn’t even have WMD much less threaten to use them.
The country’s mainly ceremonial president, Isaac Herzog, who described Palestinians as “an entire nation out there that is responsible” demonstrates the genocidal intention.
These statements in combination with their actual execution clearly meets the UN definition and criteria for genocide aka holocaust.
Get bent, you inbred cretin.
Your evidence is some Rando’s sub stack? Seriously, fuck off you deranged neo Nazi. You’re a more pathetic joke than Sarcasmic.
""It is the best compilation of evidence to date that October 7 was an inside job coordinated by Israel.""
Conspiracy theorist Misek.
Did the Nazi drop flyers on to towns before they forced people into trains?
Israel isn't forcing people onto transportation with the sole purpose of murdering.
More like frustrated ex-Hitler youth Misek.
You can’t refute anything in the video either eh.
The video proves that Israel, funded, coordinated and enabled the October 7 attacks.
It shows that Israel opened the gate to welcome trucks carrying Hamas through the wall.
It shows how Israel not only ignored repeated warnings from their many surveillance sources but withdrew all defences from the wall and emptied their military bases just hours before the attack and had ZERO response for more than 5 hours.
It shows and proves that the IDF attacked the concert goers and the kibbutz’s with Apache helicopters and tanks.
It shows that they sacrificed dozens of their IDF forces to blame Hamas.
It shows that only handfuls of Hamas soldiers wandered for hours through the evacuated areas looking for soldiers to fight but finding none.
It shows that the hostages that were taken by Hamas said they were treated well.
It shows that Israel has funded Hamas with billions in cash in suitcases in the backs of cars.
So if anyone questions the veracity of ALL THIS, watch the video and become informed.
You’re always welcome to try to refute anything you see. But you won’t because you can’t.
In the world of easily fakeable video, why should I take it at face value?
If you believe in video, check this out.
https://taskandpurpose.com/history/army-world-war-2-holocaust-concentration-camp-footage/
80 year old video of Jews that Germans held prisoner and didn’t kill?
What’s not to believe?
In comparison all the facts in the video showing how Israel coordinated October 7 have been verified.
Go suck your dads cock again you inbred freak.
1. There is no genocide in Gaza.
2. That's it. That's all.
That the same argument Israel presented to the international court of justice.
It didn’t serve them any better.
Keep eating shit, nazi fuck.
So you're saying it's right in line for Democrats and the current writers at Reason.
The First Barbary War was authorized by Congress, although there was no formal declaration.
Right. Jefferson himself considered the office of the Presidency capable of deliberately putting ships in harm's way and authorizing them to defend themselves entirely without Congressional approval so long as the fiscal control had already been conferred.
Biden said he’s authorizing the attacks to defend US personnel. Fiona doesn’t seem to contend the issue and, instead bases her argument on the existence of Houthis, which is immaterial and neither abides nor refutes The Constitution.
Even if The First Barbary war doesn’t explicitly set precedent, you’re playing retarded in assuming this represents some unique factual break of military-action-first-Congressional-approval-second from before the Civil War up to the dronessassination program.
George Washington and John Adams paid the Barbary Pirates over a million dollars in tribute.
In addition to tons of silver and gold- roughly a fifth of the Republic's annual budget, they send the Dey of Algiers and his Ottoman overlords shiploads of weapons.
At this rate, between Ukraine and the Houthis I would expect Fiona’s next article to be along the lines of ‘Why The US Should Get Congressional Approval Before Attacking Its NATO-Ally Hezbollah’.
You attack an American Naval Vessel or American's flagged merchants on the high seas the President does not need a Declar of War to protect such. Now if you want to bomb a country to preempt possible strikes you do need a DoW.
Agree. This is actually one of the situations when the President should be empowered by the War Powers Act .
The War Powers Act is not applicable here. This is not war, it is action against piracy on the high seas. Congress has the power to write the laws for this, but it is the President's duty and power to enforce them. Biden only needs Congressional authorization if his actions go beyond what Congress authorized when it passed the laws against piracy. I'm not familiar with those laws, but I suspect they were written when the US Navy chased pirates in wooden sailing ships, they took into account that an anti-piracy patrol might be on the other side of the world and sending back for new orders would take months, so nearly everthing was authorized but going over budget.
More proof that tReason is never critical of Biden and supports everything that he does.
Oh look some of the first posts people are critical of Fiona and not Biden. But here you are, again, being a chuckle fuck and shitposting.
Are you ok? Is something wrong? This is the first reply ever that didn't attack me for once being homeless. Do you have a fever?
I’m sure we will get there. First I wanted to point out what a scmuck you are.
You do realize that being critical of the author is being critical of the magazine being that that's who she writes for, right? And you call me a schmuck. You' can't even spell the word. What a dumbass.
Youre actually defending your constant bullshit? Lol.
Have you decided if you were lying about being homeless yet? The other week you claimed people made it up despite you being the one who told everyone that.
No one attacks you for BEING homeless. That is a symptom for part of what makes you such a worthless piece of crap. We attack you for being a worthless piece of crap.
Stop being a worthless piece of crap.
I mean I do attack him for being a weasel. Which is a major character flaw that led him to being homeless.
I’d have more respect if he owned his weaselness and positions instead of claiming the “both sidez” argument as some sort of imaginary moral high ground.
EVERYONE else can see that is a lie. So I will continue to pop in every now and then and just remind him that he is inferior to most of the human race.
Why do you never tire of posting the same stupid, cut-off-from-reality shit, day after day?
So many ideas!
They aren't making war. They're just trading munitions more freely in international waters without unnecessarily restrictive arbitrary social constructs Fiona, this is what you wanted.
Fucking LOL...
"I don't often oppose Joe Biden and Open Borders, but when I do, I support Houthi Rebels and Hamas." - Fiona 'The Most Unprincipled Libertarian In The World' Harrigan.
To be fair, Biden admin is the one citing War Powers Act, instead of Piracy laws. They should clearly invoke Anti Piracy acts as their justification.
To be fair, even if SCOTUS ruled against him he would be doing it anyway without the slightest fear of impeachment because people like Fiona reluctantly and strategically supported open borders.
I don't think you can stretch this to piracy though - the Houthis aren't capturing ships, aren't shooting ships in order to extort ransoms, so it isn't piracy they're doing.
Except they've seized ships, Galaxy Leader being one. The ship has been turned into an art exhibit of sorts and the crew is still held hostage to my knowledge.
So piracy it is.
Theft isn't/wasn't explicitly required. Pretty much any crime for which death would otherwise be considered as a legally appropriate sentence could/would get you identified as a pirate and sank/convicted as such.
Sinking or even harassing ships for notoriety purposes or to claim personal territory is/was more than sufficient.
Self defense is always authorized.
These are pirates. The constitution seperates declaration of war and congresses role in punishing piracy. And since nearly the founding of our union we haved relied on anti piracy laws to govern the seas. So unless Fiona is citing a violation of a piracy law (she doesn't), I don't think her argument holds much merit. Then again the Biden admin should be pointing to those laws, instead of the war powers act.
Houthis are not US Citizens.
The Houthis being attacked are not in the USA.
Where does the US Constitution get involved?
The Houthis under attack are pirates.
Stomping out the Houthis amounts to taking care of a random snake, rodent, coyote in your back yard.
Needs to be done, doesn't need to be a big deal. Put some lead in them an move on.
Easy to remedy: Republicans put forth a bill specifically authorizing use of force against any act of piracy, or invasion against any US or ally asset. Then let the Democrats vote against it.
Hey look, another pro-terrorist article by resident retarded Leftist Fiona.
Hey Fiona, what if Joe instead forgives all student loans held by Houthis? Any maybe hands out green cards?
And prepaid debit cards. Don’t forget that. Maybe some grant money to buy homes, or go to college too.
My problem with this action is where is Egypt and Saudi Arabia? This seems to be mostly their issue, yes prices may go up if the ships have to sail around Africa but the countries directly being affected are them. So yes give them logistical and intelligence support but it should be them on the front line bombing the Houthis and taking out their boats and drones not the US nor Britain. This would also neutralize the whole US vs Muslim argument.
What do their navies look like? I'm guessing not exceedingly impressive.
The attacks are land-based.
But since you asked:
Founded 1800
Country Egypt
Type Navy
Size 30,000 active personnel
20,000 reserve personnel
50,000 total personnel
320 vessels
1789 (historical)
1960 (official)
Country Saudi Arabia
Type Navy
Role Naval warfare
Size 13,500 approx. (inc. 3,000 marines)
Part of Royal Armed Forces
GSP (as of 1960)
Parent agency Ministry Of Defense[6]
Colors Blue white
Equipment 7 frigates (4 u/c)
4 corvettes (5 u/c)
39 patrol vessels
3 minehunters
2 support ships
2 royal yachts
Thomas Jefferson worried about whether fighting the Barbary pirates was constitutional, because people still cared about the constitution back then. But he did it anyway, just like he bought the Louisiana Territory anyway.
No president cares about what is constitutional or not now -- witness Joe Biden spending billions to pay off student loans without any authorization from Congress.
The Louisiana purchase WAS authorized by congress.
So was the First Barbary War.
I understanding having the ability to defend ourselves in an emergency, however once the emergency spans 30 days, there has been ample time to present this to the congress and if it is truly an emergency to formally authorize or to not authorize. The president is not a king and does/should not have unilateral power.
This is the same with the covid emergency, it one thing to stop the economy for the first 30 days, but governors continuing the state of emergency for one second longer is beyond the pale. Executives who abuse the emergency powers should at minimum be removed from office via election, but in reality they deserve to be charges, tried and imprisoned.
We as a country should not be involved in any undeclared wars either directly or through a proxy. If there is a noble reason to go to war, then it should be voted on and formally declared.
Houthis aren't a nation-state - who are you going to declare war on?
There is no Constitutional requirement that declarations of war be against a nation-state.
See also: War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror...
Defending free trade and passage of ships in free waters is one of the things the government should be doing.
And it has a long history, the shores of Tripoli and all that.
>Biden notified Congress of the strikes beforehand, but he didn't ask for authorization as Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution mandates.
1. Harrigan has apparently not heard of 'The War Powers Act' which delegates a lot of warmaking authority to the President. Its certainly been traditionally badly abused - but there's no doubt that the current actions are well within the scope of the WPA as originally envisioned.
2. Seriously? That picture? I somehow get the feeling that Harrigan is a Hamas supporter and this is all part of some justification for the US intervening.
1. Harrigan has apparently not heard of ‘The War Powers Act’ which delegates a lot of warmaking authority to the President. Its certainly been traditionally badly abused – but there’s no doubt that the current actions are well within the scope of the WPA as originally envisioned.
And I'm all in favor of dialing back the WPA but, like the Welfare State, none of it means dick if Fiona's just going to continue to push the "BORDURZ IZ EEMAJINASHUN!" idiocy.
Fiona gonna be big mad when the strikes on the cartels commence.