The War Powers Resolution's 60-day limit is triggered by "hostilities." The Obama and Trump administrations exploited the term's ambiguity, arguing that military actions like drone strikes against an enemy that cannot retaliate do not count as "hostilities," thus avoiding the need for congressional authorization.
Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano reveals DACA was initiated immediately after Congress failed to pass the Dream Act. It wasn't a proactive policy but a reactive measure, using executive power to solve a problem the legislative branch couldn't, highlighting how executive action can stem from legislative paralysis.
The conflict in Ukraine exposed the vulnerability of expensive, "exquisite" military platforms (like tanks) to inexpensive technologies (like drones). This has shifted defense priorities toward cheap, mass-producible, "attritable" systems. This fundamental change in product and economics creates a massive opportunity for startups to innovate outside the traditional defense prime model.
Presidents consistently follow the War Powers Resolution's 48-hour notification rule but include language asserting their inherent Article II authority to act unilaterally. This creates a constitutional paradox: they perform the actions required by the law while simultaneously arguing the law doesn't actually constrain them.
Luckey argues that US foreign policy is shifting away from direct military intervention. The new, more effective strategy is to arm allies, turning them into "prickly porcupines" that are difficult to attack. This approach maintains US influence and economic benefits while avoiding the political and human cost of deploying troops.
Recognizing Russia's high tolerance for military casualties, Ukraine has shifted its strategy to asymmetric economic warfare. By systematically using long-range drones to attack Russian oil refineries and tankers, Ukraine aims to inflict financial pain where the human cost of war has failed to be a deterrent, creating what they call "the real sanctions."
The legal battle over President Trump's tariffs and President Biden's student loan forgiveness both hinge on the "major questions doctrine." This Supreme Court principle asserts that if the executive branch exercises a power with vast economic and political impact based on ambiguous statutory language, the Court will rule against it, demanding explicit authorization from Congress.
The promise of asylum is a critical tool for gaining support and intelligence from local collaborators in hostile territories. Rescinding these promises, as threatened by Trump, eliminates this incentive, making it harder to recruit allies and directly putting U.S. service members in greater peril.
Representative Sharice Davids points out a common public misconception fueled by presidential rhetoric. Presidents often say "I passed this law," but their constitutional role is limited to signing or vetoing bills. The actual, complex work of drafting, negotiating, and passing legislation is the exclusive domain of Congress, a fact often obscured in political messaging.
Introducing legislation in Congress isn't always about immediate passage. Bills frequently function as messaging vehicles to build awareness and support for an idea over several congressional terms. This gradual process allows for the evolution of major policy, like the creation of new government agencies, which rarely happens in a single two-year cycle.
The Suspension Clause, which allows for suspending the right to challenge unlawful detention, is located in Article 1. This placement explicitly assigns the power to Congress, not the President, serving as a critical check on executive overreach during emergencies.