Our attack on Iran has me pondering this question again: Why do some members of Congress even run for office?
Some of them work so hard to arrive at these illustrious chambers, only to hand over their constitutional powers to the president.
In doing so, they decline to try to represent their constituents. And then they strangely choose to run for re-election anyway.
Let's not be coy here. I'm thinking mostly about my congressman, Rep. Juan Ciscomani, and most recently his position on President Donald Trump's decision to launch a war with Iran.
But the problem isn't just him or that issue. Consider congressional inaction on tariffs, especially, or Ciscomani giving up his objections to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and you'll see a pattern of members handing over their power to the president.
The pattern goes back decades and has involved members of both parties handing power to presidents of their party, but it has reached a peak in Trump's second term that is especially troubling now.
Ciscomani, a Tucson Republican representing Congressional District 6, said this after the United States and Israel launched war against Iran, overnight Friday into Saturday:
Frem Left: Reps. Andy Biggs, Juan Ciscomani and Abe Hamadeh all supported both the overthrow of the Venezuelan government and the attack on Iran.
Today’s action by President Trump sends a clear message: the Iranian regime’s aggression and destabilizing threats will not go unanswered. For decades, the Iranian regime has funded terror, attacked our allies, and threatened American servicemembers. President Trump and his administration have continually been seeking peace, but Iran chose escalation.
Protecting American lives and interest must always come first. I stand with our troops and remain committed to holding this dangerous regime accountable.
What I find missing here is any suggestion that my congressman thinks he has a vote in the matter of sending our troops into battle in another country. Nothing he has said publicly since reflects the idea that it is not just the president's decision, but also that of Ciscomani and the rest of Congress, as our representatives.
Tucson's other member of the U.S. House, Rep. Adelita Grijalva, a Democrat representing Congressional District 7, made this statement after the war began:
Trump’s attacks on Iran are completely reckless, blatantly unconstitutional, and needlessly put our troops and innocent civilians in harm’s way.
Taking the United States into a major military conflict without debate or the consent of the people’s representatives is a clear violation of Congress’s constitutional war powers.
Congress and war
The Constitution gives Ciscomani, Grijalva and their fellow members of Congress the power to declare war — or not to — although this power has been worn away by unilateral presidential military decisions over decades and is limited by the War Powers Act.
That 1973 law requires the president to inform the speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tem within 48 hours of any foreign military action. It says that the military action must end after 60 days if the president has not received congressional approval. Trump has fulfilled the first requirement.
Now, many members of Congress are insisting on being formally consulted over the Iran war, though unfortunately, it is largely a partisan split. Most Democrats are demanding that Congress' war-declaration power be respected, while most Republicans are happy to defer to the president's decision-making.
Arizona's U.S. Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego, both Democrats, have stressed the need for Congress to be consulted. And as it happens, members will get a chance this week. A resolution is coming up for a vote that would require the president to end military action in Iran.
The timing of the resolution by Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, is somewhat coincidental. It was introduced before the U.S.-Israeli attack began.
Ciscomani has not stated his position on the resolution, but it stands to reason he will vote no, since he supports the attack. Grijalva said she's going to vote yes — in favor of forcing the president to end military action in Iran — "to rein in this administration's blatantly unconstitutional military actions in Iran that have already cost the lives of U.S. troops and innocent school children."
However the vote ends up, it is unlikely to stop military action in Iran. That's because even if the resolution were to narrowly pass, Trump can veto it.
But at least the resolution forces something that should have happened before we launched attacks on Iran: A robust debate. Even before the disastrous 2003 launching of war in Iraq, at least Congress and the American people had a broad public discussion, marred as it was by false claims by the Bush administration.
Depriving the people
The members of Congress who unquestioningly approve the Iran attack are depriving the people they represent of a voice in the most important decisions we can make.
Unfortunately, this is something people represented by certain members of Congress, including half the residents of the Tucson area, have been deprived of during Trump's presidency. Before the war, Ciscomani repeatedly voted against efforts to make it easier for Congress to vote down Trump's unilaterally imposed tariffs.
This is exasperating, and similar to the refusal to demand a say in whether to go to war, because it is another subject on which the Constitution gives Congress explicit authority. Since the last time Ciscomani has voted this way on Feb. 10, the Supreme Court has confirmed that tariff power belongs to Congress, not the president. It's shocking that he has refused to seize back this power that belongs to him and Congress, on his constituents' behalf.
This is not, of course, the first era when Congressional majorities handed off power to presidents of their party. That's how we ended up in this position, with a president demolishing entire congressionally established departments with barely a peep from Congress, not to mention the tariff overreach and now a war of choice.
But it goes from a serious problem, in the case of tariffs, to a potentially catastrophic one when our representatives don't even bother to discuss war before we launch it, or demand a debate afterward. It makes you wonder why they're in office at all and why they run to stay there.
