Senators Rand Paul (Ky.) and Mike Lee (Utah) are Republicans, but both emerged from a closed-door briefing on Iran this Wednesday so angry that they vowed to support the Democrat resolution to rein in President Trump's constitutional military powers.  Paul seems to be motivated by libertarianism, while Lee is motivated by pique. 

The White House deputized defense secretary Mark Esper, secretary of state Mike Pompeo, CIA director Gina Haspel, and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Mark Milley to give the briefing to House and Senate members.  According to Lee, it was the most offensive experience he's had during his entire time in Washington.

What wounded his ego was the White House representatives stating that it would embolden Iran if Congress challenged the president's war powers.  From the outside looking in, this seems like a commonsensical observation, considering that the Democrats have sided consistently with Iran since the first moment that Trump refused to allow an Iranian proxy to turn the Baghdad embassy into another Benghazi.  They are trying to weaken a president who is, for the first time since 1979, actively working to defend America from Iran's blood-soaked dreams of establishing a worldwide caliphate.

To Lee, though, the statement was a slap in the face.  "I find this insulting and demeaning ... to the office that each of the 100 senators in this building happens to hold.  I find it insulting and demeaning to the Constitution of the United States."  The very thought that the president could act unilaterally in America's defense was, for Lee, "absolutely insane."  It sounds as if someone's feelings are hurt.

Rand Paul was more specific, saying he felt that the administration erred when it used the 2002 war authorization against Saddam Hussein to support its strike against Soleimani.  "I see no way in the world you could logically argue that an authorization to have war with Saddam Hussein has anything to with having war with people currently in Iraq," Paul told reporters.

Armed with their righteous indignation, the two senators say they plan to join with Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who is introducing a resolution, set for a vote next week, that would force Trump to end hostilities against Iran unless he gets congressional authorization.  The House is due to vote on a similar resolution today.

Paul, who is an ophthalmologist (not a dentist —ed.), and Lee, who is a lawyer and therefore ought to know better, would do well to study both recent American history and constitutional history and law regarding the president's fairly unfettered ability to respond to imminent threats.

First, unlike the situation with Iraq, Iran declared war on America 41 years ago and has been prosecuting that war ever since, right up until the day Soleimani assumed ambient temperature.  AIPAC has published a partial list of those acts of war against our nation — and it's obvious that IRGC Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani had a hand in many of those actions.  There is not any serious person who can argue that Soleimani was not a legitimate target.

Second, there is no "unless it will really make our enemies mad" clause in the Constitution.  According to the Supreme Court:

The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power [Art. II, § 1]. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed [Art II § 3]. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States [Art. II, § 2], and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States [Art. II, § 2][.] ...

If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority.

It is not the less a war on that account, for war may exist without a declaration on either side. ...

Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635, 668 (1862)

Indeed, on August 17, 1787, when the Drafters were writing the Constitution, they considered whether to give Congress broad authority over the use of military force by providing, in Art. I §8, that Congress had the power to "make war."  James Madison objected because Congress is a slow, unwieldy, intentionally deliberative body, unable to respond instantly to dynamic situations.  The Draftrs agreed and changed the language to give Congress the power to "declare war."  This was specifically to make it clear that the president has inherent authority to respond to "sudden attack." 

What all this means is that when the president determines that the United States has been attacked, he has plenary authority to respond without consulting Congress.  As a practical matter, his authority is at its zenith when we have been attacked and he determines that we may be subject to further attack.

Considering how carefully Trump calibrated the response to Iran's escalating attacks, combined with the fact that Soleimani had blatantly landed in Iraq to coordinate more attacks, Lee's and Paul's decision to join the Democrats in their endless, maddened war against President Trump is bewildering at best.  At worst...well, we'll leave that unsaid.