Iran War Powers Veto
Yesterday (06-May), the president vetoed the Iran war powers resolution that would have curbed his ability to unilaterally launch military action against Iran without Congressional authorization. This, in my opinion, was a bad move on the part of the president (although I can see why he would think otherwise).
The point, I think, is NOT that we are not currently engaged in a "use of force" with Iran, but that the president is still constitutionally constrained from any engaging in an armed conflict without Congressional approval. The president can say whatever he wants to say trying to justify it (and, unfortunately, does), but any justification doesn't change that fact.
I understand that threats from terrorist groups and rogue states do not always allow for congressional consultation and deliberation, but the mere possibility of ANY president having unlimited powers to use unilateral military force against whichever nation-state is the focus of the moment is, I think, what the Framers wanted to prevent. If a fast-strike authorization is required - particularly considering the aforementioned terrorist groups and rogue states - there are existing ideas worth pursuing that would accomplish that goal.
For the record, I would have voted to override the president's veto action. We need to remove the vesting of the unilateral war powers from the president - especially this president. He has claimed that the veto was "... part of a strategy to win an election on November 3rd ...." To that, I say "Yes, sir, it was. Very much so."