Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) walked onto the House floor Tuesday with eight articles of impeachment against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. The first three accuse Hegseth of illegally waging war against Iran.
The others range from civilian casualties and Caribbean drug-boat strikes to Venezuela, Yemen, and alleged retaliation against Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).
Massie also invoked the House's privileged-resolution procedure, which forces the chamber to confront his impeachment effort quickly instead of allowing leadership to bury it quietly in committee.
Massie has found a real constitutional argument. Congress isn't ornamental when America goes to war.
The House voted 215-208 in June to direct President Donald Trump to remove U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran. The Senate later approved the same resolution 50-48. Then, in July, the House passed another Iran war-powers resolution 214-208. Congress has repeatedly put its objection on the record.
Massie also points to the War Powers Resolution's 60-day limit. The statute says that a president generally must end the use of U.S. forces after 60 days unless Congress declares war, specifically authorizes the operation, extends the deadline, or can't meet because the United States has been attacked. It allows another 30 days when military necessity requires time to safely withdraw.
So Massie isn't imagining a dispute.
But he is skipping over a very large constitutional problem before reaching for Hegseth's scalp.
The June measure was a concurrent resolution, not a law presented to Trump for his signature. The administration argued before the vote that such resolutions lack the force of law under the Supreme Court's 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha. It also argues that Trump retains Article II authority to defend American forces and interests against Iran.
Now we arrive at Massie's target.
Trump is commander in chief. Hegseth runs the Department of War under Trump's authority. Cabinet officers can certainly be impeached, and following an unlawful order doesn't magically erase personal responsibility. But the central argument in Massie's first three articles concerns who has constitutional authority to continue an American war.
That fight belongs primarily between Congress and the president.
The Constitution gives Congress enormous military power. It can declare war, fund armies, make rules governing the armed forces, and control appropriations. The president commands those forces. Americans have been arguing over the boundary between those powers since George Washington's day.
Conservatives shouldn't pretend congressional war powers disappear because a Republican occupies the White House. If Congress believes the Iran war has exceeded presidential authority, lawmakers should say so and use the powers the Constitution gave them.
Pass binding legislation, restrict the money, force Trump to veto it, or muster the votes to override him if the case is strong enough.
Those steps are politically painful because members of Congress must take responsibility for the consequences.
Impeaching Hegseth offers a more convenient defendant.
Massie deserves credit for forcing Congress to confront a question too many lawmakers would rather leave blurry. America shouldn't drift into permanent war simply because presidents of either party find congressional approval inconvenient.
But a serious constitutional dispute deserves the correct opponent.
Massie found the fight.
But like an idiot, he aimed at the wrong man.
Washington fights are getting louder, and the details buried beneath the headlines matter more than ever. Join PJ Media VIP and support the independent conservative journalism that digs into them. Get 60% off with promo code FIGHT.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member