Workshop - Resolution Condemning the Unconstitutional U.S. Act of War Against Iran and Reaffirming Libertarian Non-Interventionism

K

Kenneth Feagins

SLEC Member
As I am sure some of you heard the news last night, or are waking up to the news this morning, the United States has become directly involved in the Israel-Iran conflict. Before moving to adopt the resolution and seek co-sponsors, I would like to open this up to a brief workshop session so we can quickly get this across to a vote. I've included a Google Drive link below so you can provide feedback directly.

Link to My Google Drive Resolution Document

The Initial Draft text of the resolution is as follows:

Resolution Condemning the Unconstitutional U.S. Act of War Against Iran and Reaffirming Libertarian Non-Interventionism

WHEREAS, on June 21, 2025, the United States, launched airstrikes on sovereign Iranian territory, targeting nuclear infrastructure;

WHEREAS, these strikes were ordered by President Donald J. Trump in clear violation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which prohibits military action without a declaration of war or an imminent threat—neither of which existed;

WHEREAS, the attack bypassed Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which vests war powers solely in Congress;

WHEREAS, the strikes risked regional destabilization and civilian harm;

WHEREAS, President Trump escalated further by threatening disproportionate retaliation against any response;

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Texas affirms that the initiation of force is immoral unless in direct self-defense and that war demands the highest level of democratic accountability;

WHEREAS, we reject the doctrine of preemptive war, which undermines liberty abroad and endangers it at home;

WHEREAS, Congress failed to assert its constitutional authority or check the unauthorized military action, despite a bipartisan War Powers Resolution being introduced prior to the strike;

WHEREAS, politicians of both major parties either supported or remained silent on this unconstitutional act of war;




THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Libertarian Party of Texas condemns President Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional order to strike Iranian territory;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Libertarian Party of Texas condemns Congress for abdicating its constitutional duty to restrain unauthorized military action and for enabling executive overreach;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Libertarian Party of Texas urges immediate passage of the War Powers Resolution introduced by Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Congress must recognize this act as a constitutional crisis demanding legal and structural remedies;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Libertarian Party of Texas calls for an immediate halt to all military aid in the region;

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Libertarian Party of Texas reaffirms its commitment to non-intervention, constitutional governance, and peace through liberty.


The Constitution is not optional. War is not a game. And the lives of Americans must never be placed at risk to serve the ambitions of empire, political vanity, or foreign entanglements.

We declare plainly and without apology: This was an illegal act of aggression. It cannot go unanswered. The Libertarian Party of Texas will not be silent while Presidents—past, present, or future—trample the Constitution and play God with American lives.

We do not serve foreign kings, and we will not be ruled by our own.

This resolution was adopted by LPTexas on [date]
 
A suggested change is to add a specific call out to Trump's 'America First'/non-interventeralism promise during his campaign.

Adding this above calling out Congress:
WHEREAS, President Trump campaigned on an anti-interventionist foreign policy, and this act directly betrays that promise, further discrediting claims of American restraint abroad;
 
I strongly support this resolution. And you all know my position, namely that I think we should call for Trump's impeachment. I wrote a resolution to that effect about his ignoring courts on deportations. Now we have an even more clear-cut reason for calling for impeachment. For now, though, Ken's resolution is needed and quickly.

So, I second.
 
Additional suggested change added to the Google Doc -
Replace: WHEREAS, the attack bypassed Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which vests war powers solely in Congress;

With: WHEREAS, like prior presidents, Trump bypassed Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which vests war powers solely in Congress—further normalizing executive war-making without consent of the governed
 
Ted Brown said:
I strongly support this resolution. And you all know my position, namely that I think we should call for Trump's impeachment. I wrote a resolution to that effect about his ignoring courts on deportations. Now we have an even more clear-cut reason for calling for impeachment. For now, though, Ken's resolution is needed and quickly.

So, I second.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Just to be clear, this is not a motion seeking cosponsors, yet.

Regarding Trump's impeachment & removal, I think that statistically, it is impossible. There are more than 1/3 of the senators who loyally serve the president, not the people who elected them, nor do I think Vance is the better pick either.

That said, I did include: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Congress must recognize this act as a constitutional crisis demanding legal and structural remedies;

Additionally, included: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Libertarian Party of Texas urges immediate passage of the War Powers Resolution introduced by Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna;

I hope that the actionable portion is to directly rein in the executive's powers. While I would love to see the War Powers Resolution essentially gutted to only defensive measures, I doubt that will happen beyond what Massie and Khanna have proposed.

Since we are still workshopping this resolution, if you feel there is something that needs to be changed, if even just a single word somewhere, please suggest the change.
 
@Kenneth Feagins why do we need to support Massie and Khanna if the 1973 War Powers Resolution was what was violated in the first place? It is unfortunate that the Congress has allowed presidents from both parties to violate this resolution.
 
This question is to somewhat play the devil’s advocate to make sure we are truly abiding in what we believe. It begins with some facts about the terms assault and battery. If someone points a gun at me or raises a bat or their fist against me or EVEN threatens to do so, and I believe they have the intent to cause me serious bodily harm, then I have the right to defend myself. If they actually do cause harm, then that is called battery. The question then, in this terrible case where humanity is harming humanity, is whether we have the right to protect ourselves when we have been threatened with death and it is very apparent that the threatening party has the ability to follow through with that threat.
In contrast, let’s say that my neighbor says that he doesn’t like me very much because of this reason or that reason. During the same conversation, he tells me that he is going to go buy some guns to protect his property from anyone who trespasses and tries to take his things. Has he made any threat to me or given me any reason to protect myself due to assault or battery?
Let’s be sure that we don’t “go off half-cocked” here. Personally, I am against what the POTUS has done at this point, but to be honest I’m not sure I’m ready to support a resolution against him without thinking this through fully.
 
Jack Westbrook said:
@Kenneth Feagins why do we need to support Massie and Khanna if the 1973 War Powers Resolution was what was violated in the first place? It is unfortunate that the Congress has allowed presidents from both parties to violate this resolution.
Click to expand...
@Jack Westbrook Good question. The War Powers Resolution doesn’t matter if Congress won’t enforce it. Massie and Khanna's resolution clarifies that no existing AUMF applies to Iran, reinforcing that the president can’t act unilaterally, as others before him have. Additionally, it explicitly puts boundaries in place, which have historically been abused.

While it is shy of what I think we would all want, it is something actionable now.
 
Jack Westbrook said:
This question is to somewhat play the devil’s advocate to make sure we are truly abiding in what we believe. It begins with some facts about the terms assault and battery. If someone points a gun at me or raises a bat or their fist against me or EVEN threatens to do so, and I believe they have the intent to cause me serious bodily harm, then I have the right to defend myself. If they actually do cause harm, then that is called battery. The question then, in this terrible case where humanity is harming humanity, is whether we have the right to protect ourselves when we have been threatened with death and it is very apparent that the threatening party has the ability to follow through with that threat.
In contrast, let’s say that my neighbor says that he doesn’t like me very much because of this reason or that reason. During the same conversation, he tells me that he is going to go buy some guns to protect his property from anyone who trespasses and tries to take his things. Has he made any threat to me or given me any reason to protect myself due to assault or battery?
Let’s be sure that we don’t “go off half-cocked” here. Personally, I am against what the POTUS has done at this point, but to be honest I’m not sure I’m ready to support a resolution against him without thinking this through fully.
Click to expand...
That is what we are doing here. This isn't seeking cosponsors.
 
Kenneth Feagins said:
A suggested change is to add a specific call out to Trump's 'America First'/non-interventeralism promise during his campaign.

Adding this above calling out Congress:
WHEREAS, President Trump campaigned on an anti-interventionist foreign policy, and this act directly betrays that promise, further discrediting claims of American restraint abroad;
Click to expand...
I wouldn't suggest referencing Trump's campaign in our resolution. I support everything else, but I don't think referencing his campaign helps our cause.
 
Kenneth Feagins said:
Additional suggested change added to the Google Doc -
Replace: WHEREAS, the attack bypassed Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which vests war powers solely in Congress;

With: WHEREAS, like prior presidents, Trump bypassed Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which vests war powers solely in Congress—further normalizing executive war-making without consent of the governed
Click to expand...
I like this edit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top