The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was designed to restore the constitutional balance in decisions to commit the United States to armed conflict. Its central provision — a legislative veto enabling Congress to direct the withdrawal of American forces by concurrent resolution — was cast into legal doubt by the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha. But Chadha was wrongly decided, its reasoning is exceptionally weak, and the Court’s subsequent embrace of functionalism in separation-of-powers cases has left it incoherent as precedent. As the United States drifts deeply into a congressionally unauthorized war with Iran, the case for overruling Chadha, or at minimum limiting it to its facts, has never been stronger.
Archiv: Parameter / Kriterien / Vorgaben / Definitionen / Leitlinien / „Definitionsmacht“ / parameters / criteria / specifications / definitions / guidelines / „power of definition“
Justices: Current Members
John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, (…)
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, (…)
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, (…)
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, (…)
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, (…)
Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, (…)
Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, (…)
Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice, (…)
Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice, (…)
Constitution of the United States: Article I
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Iran will enter talks with US only if framework agreed: Deputy FM
He reiterated Iran’s firm commitment to diplomacy even under the ongoing sensitive situation and urged the US to abandon its “maximalist approach” and respect international regulations in order to ensure „result-oriented diplomacy.“
Iran adheres to its commitments as per the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but will never accept agreements which are not within the framework of international law, the diplomat emphasized.
“I have to be very crystal clear that Iran would not accept to be an exception from the international law. Anything that we are going to be committed will be within the international regulations and international law. We have responsibilities and rights,” Khatibzadeh stressed.
Pakistan PM says US-Iran ceasefire covers ‚everywhere‘, including Lebanon
Pakistan‘s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said on Wednesday that the United States, Iran and their allies had agreed to a ceasefire „everywhere“, including Lebanon, following mediation by his government to stop weeks of fighting.
„I am pleased to announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY,“ Sharif posted on X.
Israel turning execution of Palestinians into official state policy
The penalty – execution by hanging – must be carried out within 90 days of sentencing, with no possibility of pardon. The death penalty will be determined in military courts where only Palestinians are tried. These courts have an approximately 96% conviction rate, based largely on “confessions” extracted under duress and torture during interrogations.
The death penalty will be the default sentence, and judges will be able to commute it to life imprisonment only in special circumstances. In addition, the judges will no longer be required to reach a unanimous decision.
Knesset Passes Apartheid Law Mandating Death Penalty for Palestinians
Racist National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, one of the law’s strongest backers, has repeatedly worn a noose-shaped lapel pin, symbolizing executions under the bill. He described hanging as “one of the options”, alongside the electric chair.
According to the Communist Party of Israel, “death penalty for Arabs law Is a racist legislation that entrenches legal apartheid against Palestinians.”
The Hadash–Ta’al faction also strongly condemned the Knesset’s approval today of the “Death Penalty for Palestinians law. “This law is not merely a punitive measure—it is an official declaration of the institutionalization of apartheid and racism, and the transformation of the legal system into yet another tool in the violent political repression of the Palestinian people.”
Based on the principle of the sanctity of life, Hadash–Ta’al opposes the death penalty under all circumstances and against any person, “but more when it comes to selective, racist legislation that contradicts Israel’s obligations under international law.”
On Iran, Gabbard Turned Intelligence Duties Over to Trump
Ms. Gabbard does not quickly turn on her allies, and she showed little desire to throw Mr. Kent under the bus or attack him. But she has remained in her position by being a careful student of Mr. Trump, and knows how to stay on his good side. And critiquing the president’s view of the threat from Iran was clearly not the way to keep your job.
So she came up with her line that it is Mr. Trump, not the intelligence community, that determines what constitutes a threat.
Constitution of the United States: Article I
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany
Article 25
[Primacy of international law]
The general rules of international law shall be an integral part of federal law. They shall take precedence over the laws and directly create rights and duties for the inhabitants of the federal territory.
Article 26
[Securing international peace]
(1) Acts tending to and undertaken with intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for a war of aggression, shall be unconstitutional. They shall be criminalised.
(2) Weapons designed for warfare may be manufactured, transported or marketed only with the permission of the Federal Government. Details shall be regulated by a federal law.
Trump Demeans Himself as He Attacks the Supreme Court
President Trump owes the Supreme Court an apology—to the individual Justices he smeared on Friday and the institution itself. Mr. Trump doubtless won’t offer one, but his rant in response to his tariff defeat at the Court was arguably the worst moment of his Presidency.
Trump Stuns Governors With Foul-Mouthed Rant at SCOTUS
“President Trump became enraged after learning of the Supreme Court’s ruling during the Governors’ breakfast,” Senior White House Correspondent Kristen Holmes wrote on X. “He at one point ranted against the decision and the court, saying ‘these f–king courts, ’ a source familiar with the matter told me.”
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision came down about 30 minutes into the annual governors’ breakfast on Friday morning.
Trump’s Attack on the Supreme Court Was Unhinged Even for Him
Perhaps, at next week’s State of the Union address, he’ll blame the actual Phantom of the Opera.
6 Takeaways From the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision
(February 20, 2026)
The tariff decision was the first time the court had issued a merits decision, a final decision squarely on the legality of one of Mr. Trump’s second-term executive actions. It marked a muscular show of independence by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the majority opinion striking down the president’s expansive tariffs. Two of the three conservative justices appointed by Mr. Trump during his first term, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil M. Gorsuch, joined the chief justice in rejecting the president’s signature economic policy.
LEARNING RESOURCES, INC., ET AL . v . TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL .
THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II–A–1:
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution specifies that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The Framers recognized the unique importance of this taxing power—a power which “very clear[ly]” includes the power to impose tariffs. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 201. And they gave Congress “alone . . . access to the pockets of the people.” The Federalist No. 48, p.310 (J. Madison). The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch. See Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 515.
Constitution of the United States: Article I
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Trump EPA repeals landmark carbon dioxide regulation
There is a consensus in the scientific community that human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, is heating up the planet and worsening extreme weather.
Some climate damage could be irreversible if the planet heats up enough to cross “tipping points,” such as significant melting of ice sheets that can’t be reformed.
President Trump and Administrator Zeldin Deliver Single Largest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History
In finalizing this rule, EPA carefully considered and reevaluated the legal foundation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the text of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in light of subsequent legal developments and court decisions. The agency concludes that Section 202(a) of the CAA does not provide statutory authority for EPA to prescribe motor vehicle and engine emission standards in the manner previously utilized, including for the purpose of addressing global climate change, and therefore has no legal basis for the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations. EPA firmly believes the 2009 Endangerment Finding made by the Obama Administration exceeded the agency’s authority to combat “air pollution” that harms public health and welfare, and that a policy decision of this magnitude, which carries sweeping economic and policy consequences, lies solely with Congress. Unlike our predecessors, the Trump EPA is committed to following the law exactly as it is written and as Congress intended—not as others might wish it to be.
Leaked DHS Memo Reveals ICE Claiming Expansive New Warrantless Arrest Powers
Stanford University political scientist Tom Clark questioned the validity of the memo, which appears to directly conflict with the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which requires search warrants as a protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
“So, here’s how the law works,” he wrote. “People on whom it imposes constraints don’t get to just write themselves a memo saying they don’t have to follow the law. Maybe I’ll write myself a memo saying that I don’t have to pay my taxes this year.”
ArtI.S8.C18.7.1 Overview of Congress‘s Investigation and Oversight Powers
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Congress’s power to conduct investigations stands on equal footing with its authority to legislate and appropriate. Although the „power of inquiry“ was not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it has nonetheless been acknowledged as „an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function“ derived implicitly from Article I’s vesting of „legislative Powers“ in the Congress. This implied constitutional prerogative to gather information related to legislative activity is both critical in purpose, as Congress „cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information,“ and extensive in scope, as Congress is empowered to obtain pertinent testimony and documents through investigations into nearly any matter. Included within the scope of the power is the authority to initiate investigations, hold hearings, gather testimony or documents from witnesses, and, in situations where either a government or private party is not forthcoming, compel compliance with congressional requests through the issuance and enforcement of subpoenas.
‘They’re Delusional If They Think This Is Going to Go Away’
Khanna told me that he was discussing next steps with Massie and others on the oversight committee, which may include contempt of Congress or articles of impeachment for Bondi and Blanche.
“We’re exploring all options—including impeachment,” Khanna said. “They’re delusional if they think this is going to go away.”
Unfortunately, today’s document release by @AGPamBondi and @DAGToddBlanche grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law that @realDonaldTrump signed just 30 days ago. @RepRoKhanna is correct.
(…)
The DOJ’s document dump of hundreds of thousands of pages failed to comply with the law authored by @RepThomasMassie and me. One document, 119 pages of Grand Jury testimony, was completely redacted.
I explain what is missing and what the survivors and their lawyers are still expecting to be released.
S.2557 – Epstein Files Transparency Act
(3) DECLASSIFICATION TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall declassify, to the maximum extent possible, any information that the Attorney General would otherwise withhold or redact as classified information under this section.
(B) UNCLASSIFIED SUMMARY.—If the Attorney General determines that information described in subparagraph (A) may not be declassified and made available in a manner that protects the national security of the United States, including methods or sources related to national security, the Attorney General shall make publicly available an unclassified summary of the information.
OBLIGATIONS OF ISRAEL IN RELATION TO THE PRESENCE AND ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS, OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THIRD STATES IN AND IN RELATION TO THEOCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
(October 22, 2025)
164. The Court recalls that, on 29 November 1948, referring to General Assembly resolution 181 (II) on the future government of Palestine, Israel applied for admission to membership of the United Nations, formally declaring that it “hereby unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations” (letter dated 29 November 1948 from Israel’s Foreign Minister to the United Nations Secretary-General concerning Israel’s Application for Admission to Membership of the United Nations and Declaration Accepting Obligations under the Charter, UN doc. S/1093). On 11 May 1949, the General Assembly took note of this declaration when it admitted Israel as a Member of the United Nations (General Assembly resolution 273 (III)).
165. For the purpose of responding to the question posed by the General Assembly, the Court will not examine all the obligations that Israel has undertaken as a Member of the United Nations under the Charter with regard to the question of Palestine. It will limit its analysis to those obligations concerning the presence and activities of the United Nations, including its entities, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
(…)
223. For these reasons,
THE COURT ,
(1) Unanimously,
Finds that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested;
(2) Unanimously,
Decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;
(3) Is of the opinion that the State of Israel, as an occupying Power, is required to fulfil its obligations under international humanitarian law. These obligations include the following:
(a) Unanimously,
to ensure that the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory has the essential supplies of daily life, including food, water, clothing, bedding, shelter, fuel, medical supplies and services;
(b) By ten votes to one,
to agree to and facilitate by all means at its disposal relief schemes on behalf of the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory so long as that population is inadequately supplied, as has been the case in the Gaza Strip, including relief provided by the United Nations and its entities, in particular the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, other international organizations and third States, and not to impede such relief;
IN FAVOUR: President Iwasawa; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Xue, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant,
Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde;
(c) Unanimously,
to respect and protect all relief and medical personnel and facilities;
(d) Unanimously,
to respect the prohibition on forcible transfer and deportation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
(e) Unanimously,
to respect the right of protected persons from the Occupied Palestinian Territory who are detained by the State of Israel to be visited by the International Committee of the Red Cross; and
(f) Unanimously,
to respect the prohibition on the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare;
(4) By ten votes to one,
Is of the opinion that, as an occupying Power, the State of Israel has an obligation under
international human rights law to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including through the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations and third States, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
IN FAVOUR: President Iwasawa; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Xue, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant,
Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde;
(5) By ten votes to one,
Is of the opinion that the State of Israel has an obligation to co-operate in good faith with the United Nations by providing every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
IN FAVOUR: President Iwasawa; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Xue, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant,
Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde;
(6) By ten votes to one,
Is of the opinion that the State of Israel has an obligation under Article 105 of the Charter of the United Nations to ensure full respect for the privileges and immunities accorded to the United Nations, including its agencies and bodies, and its officials, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
IN FAVOUR: President Iwasawa; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Xue, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant,
Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde;
(7) By ten votes to one,
Is of the opinion that the State of Israel has an obligation under Article II of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations to ensure full respect for the inviolability of the premises of the United Nations, including those of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and for the immunity of the property and assets of the Organization from any form of interference;
IN FAVOUR: President Iwasawa; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Xue, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant,
Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde;
(8) By ten votes to one,
Is of the opinion that the State of Israel has an obligation under Articles V, VI and VII of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations to ensure full respect for the privileges and immunities accorded to the officials and experts on mission of the United Nations, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
IN FAVOUR: President Iwasawa; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Xue, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant,
Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde.
CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 February 1946
SECTION 3. The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whom soever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action.
(…)
SECTION 30. All differences arising out of the interpretation or application of the present convention shall be referred to the International Court of Justice, unless in any case it is agreed by the parties to have recourse to another mode of settlement. If a difference arises between the United Nations on the one hand and a Member on the other hand, a request shall be made for an advisory opinion on any legal question involved in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute of the Court. The opinion given by the Court shall be accepted as decisive by the parties.
United Nations Security Council: PERMANENT AND NON-PERMANENT MEMBERS
The Council is composed of 15 Members:
Five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term year):
– Algeria (2025)
– Denmark (2026)
– Greece (2026)
– Guyana (2025)
– Pakistan (2026)
– Panama (2026)
– Republic of Korea (2025)
– Sierra Leone (2025)
– Slovenia (2025)
– Somalia (2026)