Jenna Ellis: House passes resolution to block military action against Iran
Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio. I love talking about the things of God because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God, our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you. And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, June 4, and last night the House passed a resolution to block military action against Iran. And also, early this morning, Donald Trump has announced that he's going to appoint, and nominate, Todd Blanche to be the permanent, not just the acting Attorney general. So a lot of headlines this morning, and we'll get to both of those a little later on in the show.
One month out from July 4th, we celebrate America's 250th anniversary
But first, we are just one month out. Today's June 4th, so one month out from July 4th and celebrating America's 250. And so I want to start this morning talking about a presupposition of America. And what I mean by that is something that we all kind of take for granted that's just woven into the fabric of our society. We, we assume it almost like we assume that we, you know, we wake up and we breathe oxygen and it's just always there. And sometimes we're aware of it, especially if we need it, even more. But then, sometimes we're not aware of it and we just go about our regular routine with just this in the background, understanding and sometimes not even aware of how it moves and operates. And I'm talking about liberty. And there's a great piece, in the Washington stand that's titled Freedom Isn't Free, Neither Is the Faith that Sustains it, by Troy Miller, who is, the president of the National Religious Broadcasters Association. And he talks in this piece that a republic that treats the faith of its founders as optional will eventually discover that the courage of its defenders is optional as well. And conversely, a people willing to rededicate itself to the God who endowed it with liberty may yet discover that the same source, speaking of God, who supplied 250 years of improbable resilience still supplies the transformative truths necessary to defend it for the next 250. What a great premise and a great topic.
Troy Miller: We do take liberty for granted as a society
So let's welcome in Troy Miller. And you know, I think we, because we, who have benefited from 250 years of liberty and the freedom that God, endowed on us, as individuals, but also that by his providence ordained this country and has sustained it for 250 years. I think that we do take liberty for granted, and we shouldn't. Troy, good morning.
Troy Miller: Good morning, Jenna. Great to be with you today. you're exactly right. You know, I think as a society, we do take liberty for granted. We take the fact that, often I think I travel around the world, so I've traveled to multiple countries, communist countries, dictatorships, all different areas. And I think in America, sometimes we just take for granted. We think that the rest of the world is like us and the rest of the world is not like us. Liberty, is very unique in America. And as we said, it's based on this fact that our founding fathers believe and understood that. That liberty wasn't granted by a government, that liberty was granted to humanity by its creator.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And what a wonderful recognition that was at the foundation of America. And how do you think that. And I realize that we only have this one segment, but, you know, how do you think that, our founders intended for liberty to be preserved and protected, not generated by government, as we've discussed? that we have seen eroded or maybe even transformed and misunderstood over the 250 years that now we arrive at 20, 26. And I think we understand liberty in a very different definition than how our founders recognized it as part of, God's endowment.
Troy Miller: Yeah, I think our founders, if we look back and really understand history, ah, our founders, again, understood that liberty was founded in the citizens itself. And it was that Jon Adams quote of a moral and religious people that they understood that if society stayed as a moral and religious people, then liberty would be preserved. Because the idea of liberty, the idea of a free choice of our own conscience, and that was really the key, the freedom to have our conscience be the dictator, to be the driver of our actions, and that those were based in, just solid biblical morality, ethics and values, then that's what, for this country, that's really the cornerstone that we stood, upon in our liberty. I think what's happened in the modern day, I'm going to say I think we've exchanged what we think is liberty for somewhat this idea of security, and also this idea that not only do we have to worry about our conscience, we suddenly have to worry about everybody else's. So therefore, we can't, say things that might offend people or might hurt somebody's feelings. So we've kind of exchanged this whole idea of what liberty mean to the founding fathers, that personal liberty that was seared by our conscience to this somehow social kind of experiment that's re engineered liberty, to mean security and to mean this kind of false, almost toxic empathy.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's such a great point Troy Miller, that liberty doesn't mean what it's come to mean in 2026 which a lot of people have have exchanged this notion of liberty meaning the freedom not to do what we want, but the freedom to do what we ought, which is Os Guinness, definition that I love and have borrowed repeatedly. And they've exchanged it now in 2026 to mean that liberty is whatever my adult desire drives me towards. And that has to be affirmed and it has to be protected in society. And that's what we're seeing right now, during Pride Month. Thankfully a lot less than we have over the last few years. But this whole idea and even some of the responses to the Christians posting online saying you know, no, I'm not going to affirm, you know, homosexuality, I'm not going to affirm gay marriage, you know, some of those topics that are deeply moral, in premise saying well what is it to you? And how dare you want to live your life the way that you want, but you're not giving others the liberty to live their life the way they want. And I think that there's a false assumption there that I'm living life just the way that I want instead of the way that God intends. And there's a big difference there.
Troy Miller: That's exactly right. There's a big difference there. there's a difference of living life in this again, I think especially where we're at today with all of the communication tools, social media, everything that goes on, we're living life in this sort of collective whatever society collectively thinks about life which is often just extremely self centered. as you said, as we see in the whole gay pride movement, we see it in the way we look at how the government operates. we have given up charity to the government instead of pulling charity into us where it belongs. And so you have this, and there's this just tremendous pressure in society today that really pushes people to be aligned to what they would consider societal norms. When again you go back, even go back just 50 years or 75 years in this country. And the foundation of again was a very strong biblical understanding and holding up biblical values, biblical morality and the ethics and how we related to one another. And that again that was the foundation but now we sort of look for everything. It's like, what's the latest trend, in an issue? And then we're going to chase that trend. And that's where what we've given up liberty for. Because now the government sort of wants to step in and be the arbitrator or be the dictator, the communicator of how we should feel and how we should act and what liberty means to us.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, the way that I have characterized that whole concept, has been that we have taken the blessings of liberty and the implicit morality of. Of natural law. How our framers wrote in the Declaration of Independence, and they termed it the laws of nature and of nature's God, and that's where our rights are derived. And we have now exchanged that and transformed that and, frankly, perverted that whole notion into civil rights. And because we are so focused on civil rights and the rights that come from government and the government determining and defining where in the hierarchy of, this. This rights scaffolding, maybe religious freedom is, which is, in their view, lower than the right to, for the LGBTQ Mafia movement, for example, then there's all of this different stratification. And so our natural rights have been transformed over the last 250 years into civil rights. And because of that, I think we are losing the understanding and the definition of liberty what liberty actually means and what the providence and sovereignty of God has genuinely confined us to in terms of morality, because moral law is just as objective and observable. Ah. In terms of natural law, as, the other laws of nature, like, the law of gravity, for example. I mean, we may object to it, but if you jump off a building, that law is going to, still provide consequences and immediate enforcement. We can't get around it. We can't legislate around it. But that's exactly what we've been trying to do, I think, for the last 250 years.
Troy Miller: There's been a concerted effort to remove God from public institutions
And so when you write Troy, about a people willing to rededicate ourselves to the God who endowed us with Liberty on our 250th, where do you see that spark of revival perhaps, starting?
Troy Miller: You know, one thing I'd like to say, we didn't get here by mistake. there's been a very concerted effort to remove God, particularly from all of our public institutions. We took God, and the Ten Commandments out of schools. We took prayer out of schools. We see this in higher education. We see it, of course, in the government with this false idea, separation of church. And states. And we've seen this effort over the last 50 to 75 years to push people into what's known as a personal faith. You know, your faith is personal to you don't have it to be a public faith. I think what we're seeing today is starting to see a rejection of that. We're starting to see, people who say, wait a second, this, the experiment hasn't gotten us to this utopia that it was promised to get us to in this freedom. And people are feeling the effects of that. We have depression and we have loneliness and all of these things. And what we're starting to see, I think, especially exciting amongst the younger millennial generation and the gen zers is no, there's a rejection of that. We really want to go back and understand, what are those biblical principles? What, what were the things that drove the founding Fathers to come up with this idea of this republic that we have, this constitutional republic? And oh, by the way, what are those things that actually have and provide meaning in my life? So we've seen Bible sales up. We see, people attending Christian, conferences and events have been up. We've seen church attendance, has risen amongst that group. But I think the most exciting thing is we're seeing, major values shift in that group where particularly young men are now talking more about family. They're talking about, their country, they're talking about, courage to share their faith in the public square. And so I think that's in this whole idea of us rededicating our country. It's rededicating back to that principle and recognizing the foundation of where our freedoms come, to today. And I think especially us as Christian communicators have to do as much as we can to foster this movement and to help it grow.
Jenna Ellis: Amen. Amen. Well, we have to, leave it there. Troy Miller. But what a great, ah, premise and also call to action. for those of us who are Christians, especially part of the AFR family, we need to do more to explain why the coexist bumper sticker isn't working in society. And as you write in the Washington stand, freedom isn't free. Neither is the faith that sustains it. You can go read that article, but this is what we should be talking about for America. 250 is saying, how can we come back to the foundational principles that began this great country and need to propel it forward for the next 250? So we're going to continue talking about this on the other side of the break. We will be right back.
Troy Miller: Odd stars.
Gallup poll finds decline in acceptance of same sex marriage among Republicans
Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And you know, speaking of, liberty and returning back to our values, this is some good news from a Gallup poll, and this coming from The Associated Press. U.S. attitudes toward same sex marriage and transgender issues are shifting. And so acceptance of so called same sex marriage and relationships in the United States has flattened after more than two decades of steadily increasing support, with an ongoing decline among Republicans. So that, is. According to a new Gallup poll, about 65% of U.S. adults believe same sex marriage should be legal, down from, down slightly from 71% in 2022 and 2023, which I think was kind of the height of the pride movement, during Biden in office, all of that. We are seeing that trend shift. And according, to the ap, most of the change is due to dropping acceptance among Republicans. In the new survey, which was conducted In May, only 37% of Republicans say same sex marriage should be legally validated, while 35% say gay and lesbian, relationships are, quote, unquote, morally acceptable. The views of Democrats and Independents are largely the same in the findings released, this week, with most in both groups of Democrats and Independents saying that same sex marriage should be legal and that gay or lesbian, relationships are, quote, unquote, moral. So this is a widening partisan divide, and it's also reflected in the policy around the LGBTQ issues across the US Particularly regarding transgender people, and a rising push in some states to ban same sex marriage. So, let's welcome in Delano Squires, who is a research fellow at Heritage. And, Delano, I think this is, this is fantastic news. I think that that's still too high of a percentage among Republicans. But I think a lot of this shift is that we're actually seeing the harm, not just within the T of the lgbtq, of, men and women's sports, of men claiming they can become women, all of the implicit, and obvious harms there, but also with children. And we're seeing increasing reports and posts that are just frankly, objectively disgusting showing, you know, two men holding a baby. There was a post on social media just this week showing, you know, two gay men in a bed with two boys, that they had adopted. And I think that the perception and the reality of what this whole movement has wrought is finally being recognized by conservatives and especially Christians, who hopefully have objected to it this whole time. but I think this shift is encouraging. What's your perspective and Good morning.
Delano Squires: Good morning. Well, I agree that the shift is encouraging, but I'm cautiously optimistic, particularly because the numbers haven't really moved that much for Democrats or independents. And the left typically has control sort of of our cultural institutions. And my sense is that for some on the left, even with the transgender issue, they are hardening as they see conservatives sort of pushing back over the last couple of years on some of these issues. But the other thing is, I think, in the abstract, there are many Republicans and conservatives who will say they oppose same sex marriage. The question is, how do they react when the gay people that they know say, I'm getting married or I'm adopting children or we're about to have a child via surrogate? And I think, general, you and I have both seen rock rib conservatives congratulate people in those situations, whether online or in person. so I'm again cautiously optimistic. but at least the trend lines are moving in the right direction for conservatives.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I think you're right to characterize it as cautiously optimistic because we still do see some of that acceptance that, you know, if you're in our tribe and you know, and you call yourself a Republican, and the most high profile example right now is Dave Rubin, who is a former Democrat, then turned conservative Republican. I would say conservative in air quotes, but, you know, he and his quote unquote husband, then through surrogacy adopted two children. And unfortunately there were a lot of conservatives here in the state of Florida, including Governor DeSantis, which really disappointed me, congratulated that. And I think that it's kind of this reaction to say, okay, even if I personally disagree with it, I still need to congratulate, the scenario because at least we're moving toward family. We're moving, you know, toward at least a semblance of traditional values. But I think that that is an absolute lie because what they're doing is borrowing from normal. And what they're doing is, is, is going outside of the contours and the moral bounds and the objective natural law bounds of what actually, creates a family which is one man, one woman in the marriage covenant. And that's the only natural opportunity to create a child. And so the family unit has always been defined, since Genesis 1 and since God created. But you know, even, even for those who don't believe in God, that's just the natural way of things. You can't create a child absent one man and one woman. That's it. And so, what do you think it will take to continue this trend of more and more, Republicans, conservatives, being willing to stand up and say, you know, well, it's great that you're voting Republican to somebody like Dave Rubin. You know, that's fine. We are not going to congratulate, condone, or participate in your lie that what you have and that circumstance is either moral or actually a start of something called a family or a marriage.
Delano Squires: Yeah, I think it's going to take a great deal of political courage. I think it's going to take sort of rhetorical clarity for conservatives to be, you know, resolute in terms of what it is that we're arguing for in the public square. So if two. If two men want to have a particular type of relationship, that's on them. But once you bring children into it, we should be able to say no. Every child has a right to the affection, protection, connection, direction and correction of the one man and one woman who created him or her. And that right is best exercised in a loving, low conflict home with a married mom and dad. Random, adults don't have rights to children that they haven't created because that would imply that someone is obligated to give them a child that they, cannot create because of whatever lifestyle choices they've made. So I think part of it is getting rights right conceptually and then being able to, speak to that in the public square. But we have a challenge here on the right. And even though most people don't think of it this way, this is what I would characterize as a political immigration problem, which is to say when you welcome people from, you know, disaffected Democrats and progressives from the left, and you welcome them into your tribe, your political nation, so to speak, and you don't assimilate them, then what ends up happening is that they end up exerting more influence on you than you on them. And we understand this intuitively when we talk, you know, about cultural assimilation. But the same thing I think we've seen happen over the last 10 years when it comes to political immigration and assimilation. And one fact that many conservatives probably just don't want to admit is that the president himself, if given an opportunity, let's say in the perfect world for social conservatives to sign an executive order that would unilaterally overturn Obergefell, I do not think he would do it. and part of that is because I don't expect someone who for most of his life was either a Democrat or independent from NewSong York, to have the sexual ethics, or you know, biblical ethics of a Bible Belt person, you know, a Southern Baptist Theological Seminary grad. I just don't expect that. so we're sort of fighting upstream, not just the progressive left, but when we start saying no, we need to overturn, Obergefell, we're going to realize that we're going to have to fight some people in our own tribe as well. And part of that is because they have exerted more influence in conservative circles when it comes to some of these social issues.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And that fight even within the right, is not allowing a full coalition of the right, and even in Congress right now. I mean if they're, if Congress wanted to legislate and hopefully drive toward overturning that, we just simply don't have the votes. And one of the most prominent examples actually came yesterday with Senator Ted Cruz, who I was very disappointed in. I mean he's a self professed Christian and he responded to Tennessee Representative Andy Ogle saying that quote, homosexuality has no place in America. And Cruz responded, well, I think for all of recorded history that homosexuals have been a part of humanity. And you know, I gotta say I'm quite libertarian by nature. I think the behavior of consenting adults is their business. And this is the lie here because for almost all, almost all of recorded history, and this is only after Genesis 3, there's been a lot of immoral behavior that's been a part of humanity. But consent to immorality has never been the justification for civil society to permit that immorality. I mean this is why we have laws around illicit drugs, porn, prostitution, you know, all of those things. And consent certainly isn't a justification or adult desires for a self proclaimed Christian to condone it and just say, well, basically live and let live. This is a problem. Absolutely.
Delano Squires: And I think Senator, Cruz eventually is going to be pushed, when it comes to that libertarian leanings. When three men walk into a courthouse in NewSong York or San Francisco and they demand to be quote, unquote married, neither libertarians nor progressives will have any basis on which to deny them a marriage certificate. And the first thing that they will do, you know, when the courts rule that this is legal and allowable, is march right down to the nearest adoption center and say now that we are legally married, we should be able to adopt children and build the family that we desire. So, so you're right. Morality is not just based on consent because there are lots of things that you and I could think of that consenting adults could do, or even one particular adult could do in the privacy of his or her own home that we would see as grossly immoral. but this is part of the problem that we're fighting. And this is one of the issues when people try to figure out, okay, which one leads in the dance policy or culture. The fact of the matter is the law is a teacher. And once the lesson starts and everybody's in the classroom, we begin to learn certain things. And the more that the lesson is repeated in the classroom, the harder it is to unlearn it. because now we're 11 years from Obergefell and it has been so thoroughly baked into the culture that you can't even get a self proclaimed conservative senator to say anything that may be critical of that particular lifestyle or policy choice. So it will be an uphill battle. but the good thing, particularly for Christians, is that we know in the end God wins and we are doing our best to carry out his will on earth. And the great thing about it is that we're doing it on behalf of children. we're not doing it for political points or for our own, you know, social esteem. It's because children have a right to a mom and a dad. And anyone who creates an intentionally motherless or fatherless child should have to answer for the things that they are doing.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And this, this goes further back, even in our law, than just Obergefell.
John Delano says overturning anti-sodomy laws doesn't change morality
Because what paved the way for that, of course, was, the, the laws around contraceptives which, you know, allowed for illicit and promiscuity in, in terms of sex. And then what happened was Lawrence v. Texas, and I think that was around 2001. That, that then was the anti sodomy law that then said, okay, well if love is love and adults are permitted to have, you know, whatever type of sexual relations that they prefer and desire, then it became, okay, well then why can't we, enter that, that civil union that's called a marriage and why can't the state designate that? So it really is a slippery slope. And I was talking, to one of my good friends yesterday, about this whole idea of, you know, overturning the anti sodomy laws and how, you know, here in 2026 that would be the same thing, almost as saying, okay, well, we're going to overturn no fault divorce and say that, you know, adultery is illegal again. Like, how dare the government come in and try to regulate my private life and my Relationships. But, my opinion on this, Delano, is that however unpopular in 2026, that doesn't change morality. I mean, 95% of people may, may or may not agree with it, but we know that from God's creation the purpose of sex is in order to conceive children. Now, you know, pleasure and other things and bonding, you know, go along with that. But the actual purpose is to create children and perpetuate, the family, the human race. and so within the context of the marriage, which is the only context that children, can be created, that's the only context that sex is appropriate. And so, you know, the, the left will push back and say, okay, heterosexual, why is your type of sex okay, but not mine? And it's not about, you know, just my personal views on it. It's saying that if sex morally is in the context of marriage, then what is the marriage? Well, marriage has to be defined by a family. And so, the family unit is just the one man and the one woman. And so homosexuality always borrows from the natural. And so my argument why sodomy should not be permitted is that it's unnatural. And our laws expressly require that we protect natural rights. And the founders expressed this as the laws of nature and of nature's God. And if we actually took that seriously and we didn't just permit adult desires, however they come about, then we would have never gone down this slippery slope to begin with.
Delano Squires: Question is, are we so far down slope that, it's, you know, too hard to get back up to the top of the mountain? And again, even if we just started on, you know, among conservatives, like if we were to take this poll among, conservatives on Capitol Hill, I doubt that there would be, you know, even private support for it. And I think part of it is just because the types of things that we see as social maladies are widespread and not just on the progressive left. one of the tells that a conservative, whether in politics or media and culture, is starting to buckle on these issues is when they have a child, whether adolescent, young adult, or a grown child who is gay, identifies as trans, is in a same sex marriage. that's when you see that compromise start to begin. I'm thinking of Dick Cheney, I'm thinking of Krish, Christie. I'm thinking of several people who have talked about, how personal experience and has changed their views on some of these issues. So it's hard to claw back that territory. And sometimes I wonder, okay, what if there was a grand compromise struck and Said, look, you keep whatever behavior you want to do, engage in, you know, behind closed doors, we get the kids back. because right now we're getting the worst of both worlds. We live in a world, and I'll just give a little personal experience, personal professional experience. Jon.
Delano Squires: I sent a model bill, to the D.C. city Council this week, that would create a commission on marriage and family. And the council member I sent it to seems very open to it. He represents a very low income part of the city where 80%, basically, of children in his part of the city are born out of wedlock. And then when I turned on, when I went on X the other day, on June 1, the same day I sent it, I saw the mayor of Washington D.C. celebrating pride, celebrating the fact that she believes D.C. is the, quote, gayest city in the country. and I saw that particular council member standing behind, you know, I'm not saying he was waving the flag, but he certainly was there in support of the overall movement. So it's hard, it's going to be hard to claw back some of this territory. But to me, one start is to put the focus back on children. Because right now everything having to do with family policy, whether in our laws or in our culture, is focused on the desires of adults, and almost nothing about it is focused on the needs and rights of children.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. And, we have to take a break here, but, we could talk about this for so much longer. Delana, Squires and I so appreciate, the work that you do at Heritage and for advocating for, the proper definitions of marriage and family and also the rights of the child. And I agree with you, it needs to start there. And even if for, the interim, you know, there is that, that compromise that, that's at least rolling it back and we're at least saving harm that comes to children, just like we want to save harm that comes to women in, with men and women's sports, we've seen, you know, a lot of public support for that and then legislation accordingly. So we've got to go back to, to empirical truth and not just framing this or allowing it to be framed as adults desires and preferences over empirical reality and natural law and just simply the design and purpose of marriage, family and human sexuality in that context. So you can follow Delano on X. And we will be right back with more.
House passes resolution to block military action against Iran; President Trump could veto it
Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back live. As I mentioned off the top of the show, the house has passed A resolution to block military action against Iran. So lawmakers voted 215 to 208 for the Democrat led measure to remove U.S. troops from armed hostilities with Iran. I was under the assumption that Republicans controlled Congress, but, you know, what do we, what do, what does that matter these days? But, let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is senior counsel with the Lawfare Project. And, a couple of questions off the top of this resolution. First, this measure invokes the 1973 War Powers Resolution, and it's attempting to halt the Iran conflict or otherwise basically force President Trump to obtain congressional approval to continue military operations against Iran. Can this type of resolution be vetoed?
Gerard Filitti: The short answer is yes, it can be. And this is what the problem is. This is largely a symbolic and political measure, not one that has legally binding effect. We've already seen the Supreme Court rule back in the 1980s that these types of legislative vetoes are unconstitutional or presumptively unconstitutional. And that what needs to happen is both houses of Congress need to vote on a bill which then needs to be presented for the President. And if he signs it, which let's face it, he won't, it becomes law. And if he vetoes it, then Congress has to either over either veto or let it die. So this process has not been followed, meaning that this resolution is more symbolic than anything else.
Jenna Ellis: So because it's a resolution versus legislation, then that's why it's largely symbolic. And Trump can still veto this type of resolution?
Gerard Filitti: Most likely, yes. The language in the War Powers Resolution does allow for a concurrent resolution. So exactly the type of thing that Congress is working on now that the House passed, and that's now before the
Gerard Filitti: Senate, but that the War Powers act came before the Supreme Court struck down legislative vetoes. So the same theory, the same analysis that the supreme court used in 1983 is likely going to invalidate that provision of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, meaning that, either Congress has to find enough votes to override the presidential veto, or President Trump has to agree to
Jenna Ellis: it, which, of course, as you mentioned, he's not going to. so how does, does then the 1973 War Powers Resolution and the Supreme Court's later opinion, work together with the constitutional provision that Congress must declare war. I mean, in, in theory, there hasn't been a declaration of war. This was initially, just a responsive conflict. And obviously the executive, does have some military unilateral powers. But functionally then doesn't this, a little bit obfuscate Congress's actual constitutionally vested authority.
Gerard Filitti: It does, but that was always the problem. That was the problem that the War Powers Resolution itself was trying to address. Because by 1973, the executive, the President, had been seen as having too much leeway to evolve American forces into foreign conflicts like Vietnam, and that were not always done with Congressional approval. So that tension has always existed. It's existed since the founding of the nation. the Executive has always argued that it does not have, to abide by or wait for Congress, that it has certain needs to act for the national defense, like the justification that President Trump used with Iran. But, at the same time, Congress does have that power under the Constitution. So the War Powers Resolution was not a satisfactory resolution to this, this question. And we may well see this both litigated before the Supreme Court. But we need essentially for Congress to act. They need to take back their own power if they want to, and they're
Jenna Ellis: not doing that, at least in the proper procedural way, under this resolution. So what would need to change other than making it actually legislative in nature rather than a resolution?
Gerard Filitti: Well, that's exactly it. They would need to make it legislative in nature. But they have to look beyond just one conflict. If this is about war powers and not the conflict in Iran, then it may be easier for Congress to find a veto proof majority to come up with a new law that specifically restricts the President's ability to direct, forces overseas. in many circumstances, if they make it just about Iran or a specific conflict, it makes it harder to find that two thirds majority to override a presidential veto.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this is all fascinating not just in the context, the narrow context in 2026 of the conflict with Iran, but more broadly about presidential authority, ah, for military action absent Congress's approval. And you know, from the standpoint of precedent, it's been interesting to see how President Trump has tested a variety of precedent, that we're getting new commentary from the Supreme Court on issues that haven't been as heavily litigated, prior to his two terms. And so on the issue of war powers, I mean, there is this balance that we don't want to just have a unilateral executive, determining when to engage the United States in war and an actual declaration, but we also, need to preserve the ability to move quickly to respond to threats. I do agree with, with the administration that, and I believe them that Iran and its nuclear capabilities was an imminent threat that necessitated at least the beginning of this conflict. So you know, where, where should we be? And, and idealistically if the Supreme Court, could could have an opinion that, that basically balanced these two interests, where should this come down Constitutional?
Gerard Filitti: Well that's an excellent question. I think you hit the nail on the head before because we don't really want to completely tie the hands of the executive. 2026 is not 1776. You don't send Navy slowly across the ocean in sailing ships. Attacks happen in the blink of an eye and the President needs the flexibility to address them, preempt them and respond to them without going through a laborious process of getting hundreds of Congress members on board. So there does need to be that flexibility. And I think ultimately the Supreme Court is going to look at it in the same way that the modern realities of the office of the President, and the way that war is carried out today do require giving the Executive more flexibility, but not endless flexibility. So I think Congress will likely uphold the President's power here when this is challenged, but it will push it, as the Roberts Court has done for many years, back to Congress to say you need to act on this, you need to draft clear legislation and clear parameters because that's ultimately your responsibility as, as a Congress.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, 100%. And, and what's so frustrating and so different from 1776 to 2026 is how political in nature the divide between the parties has become because it isn't just one Congress looking at this saying, hey, we need to draft a good legislative precedent that will span administrations, you know, from here for the next 250 years and beyond. That will actually be a good precedent regardless of whether my same party controls the White House or whether the opposition does, and looking at it more level headed. So much of this comes down to partisan politicking. And that's what we saw yesterday with the resolution because this was Democrat led, only four Republicans voted with Democrats to support the resolution. So this has become so highly partisan in nature I'm not sure we'll ever actually get there unless it becomes the Supreme Court, which as, as you rightly pointed out, isn't actually the the, the branch of government that should be responsible for setting up this process. It should be Congress doing this. But I just don't see them coming together and being level headed enough to actually propel this forward.
Gerard Filitti: All right, unfortunately I agree with you. I think it'll take a new generation of politicians, a new generation of electives to get back to the point where people can at Least on some things, put aside partisan differences and work for the common good of the country. And unfortunately, I just don't think we're there yet. people in Congress right now, they will vote for or against something merely because it has President Trump's name attached to it or merely because it has a, D or an R as the sponsor of the bill. and that's something that we have become hyper partisan and that's affecting our ability to defend our country, to make good laws, and to protect and promote our values. So ultimately, it will take a new generation of leaders in Congress, I think, to get past this. And that might take a few more elections to get to that point.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, a few more, hopefully. Hopefully few. But the way that this is going and how, just crazy the primaries and the midterms are, I don't see that happening, at least in this election. But hopefully we can get there.
Gerard Felitti: The Supreme Court has traditionally given deference to executive
but with respect to the Supreme Court looking at this issue, you know, of course they, they're confined to, generally to the question presented, even though they can, they can go a little bit beyond that if they want to enterprise that themselves, slightly. But could they. Do you see them drawing a distinction between defensive measures that a president can and should take in the interest of national security versus a sort of preemptive overture, like what happened here where there was, you know, it wasn't Iran trying to bomb us, it was that we preemptively went in to try to stop them from obtaining nuclear, armament, which is a little different in posture than purely defensive. Do you see them addressing that balance at all?
Gerard Filitti: Well, before we answer that, the interesting question to ask is who even has standing to bring this challenge? Because Congress right now, it may be that this past the House, but it passed the House because some Republicans weren't in town. So you would need essentially the whole House to vote to take this to the Supreme Court as a lawsuit. Not just the partisan, you know, a few Democrats who sign onto this legislation. So whether the Supreme Court even hears it is a question that we don't know the answer to yet. But when they do, I also don't think that they will be parsing the language and trying to come up with guidelines for the President. I think the Roberts Court has shown that that's exactly what it does not want to do, that, it wants to leave this to the. It has given a lot of deference to the executive for national security, and I expect that it will continue to do so. I think that the court will kick it back to Congress to say that if you want specific constraints on specific types of actions, you guys need to pass a law about it. But the longstanding deference that the Supreme Court of either side has had for national security matters, I think will continue if, the court reviews this.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And that deference, I mean, to an extent, as we've talked about, is a good thing. We need that kind of nimble, opportunity for the executive to respond quickly and decisively. But we also don't want a situation, you know, for those who love President Trump and are all for this, you know, that's great, but we're always concerned about precedent and future administrations that may engage in ways that, you know, we don't prefer as a matter fact of, of policy. And so it's not whether we like this particular action, it's overall, what should the precedent be? And that's what the Supreme Court, if they hear this, ah, needs to be concerned with. So, Gerard Felitti, thank you so much for your commentary on this, for breaking this down and making this more clear. It's going to be very interesting to see, where this lands and whether or not this will ultimately have any impact on not only the Iran conflict, but, again, future precedent. So really appreciate it. You can follow, Jared Felitti on X. And as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna afr.net.
