Tuesday morning, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) filed an article of impeachment against President Donald Trump over the United States’ strike on three sites in Iran this weekend.

Green’s article of impeachment alleges that Trump violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. That section says only Congress can declare war.

“In starting his illegal and unconstitutional war with Iran without the constitutionally-mandated consent of Congress or appropriate notice to Congress, President Trump acted in direct violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution. President Trump has devolved and continues to devolve American democracy into authoritarianism by disregarding the separation of powers and now, usurping congressional war powers,” Green wrote.

READ MORE: Just 100 Days in and Trump White House Is Already Prepping for Impeachment: Report

Though the meat of the impeachment article is about Iran, Green also calls out other objectionable things done by Trump.

“President Trump’s unilateral, unprovoked use of force without congressional authorization or notice constitutes an abuse of power when there was no imminent threat to the United States, which facilitates the devolution of American democracy into authoritarianism, with an authoritarian president who has instigated an attack on the United States Capitol, denied persons due process of the law, and called for the impeachment of federal judges who ruled against him—making Donald J. Trump a threat to American democracy,” he said.

Green’s article of impeachment is unlikely to go anywhere. The House is controlled 220-212 by the Republican party. Even though some House Republicans like Thomas Massie (R-WV) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) have criticized Trump’s action in Iran, even if every Democrat voted in favor of impeachment, it would be a tall order for nine Republicans to flip. An article of impeachment only needs a simple majority in the House before going to the Senate.

Trump is the only president to be successfully impeached twice. However, he has never been convicted.

Though Trump did not have Congressional approval to order the U.S. to attack Iran—and, according to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, they were only informed afterward—the Constitution isn’t as clear as it might sound. The last time Congress declared war was in 1942, but there have been many wars since then, but by different names; the Korean War was officially a “police action.”

The president is officially Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military, and as such, can order a response to attacks, or other limited military actions without the approval of Congress. During the Vietnam War (another “police action”), President Richard Nixon ordered the secret bombings of Cambodia without informing Congress. Once this was revealed, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which puts limits on what the president can do without Congressional approval.

Under the War Powers Resolution, a president can order a military action, but must inform Congress within 48 hours. Armed forces cannot stay in an area for over 60 days, though they can have a window of an additional 30 days to withdraw.

Trump has been accused of violating the War Powers Resolution twice before. The first was in 2017, when Trump ordered a missile strike in Syria over allegations the country had used chemical weapons. Next was in 2020 when the U.S. killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike. Neither of these accusations, however, resulted in anything.

Image via Reuters

The Department of Justice has filed suit against Washington state over a new law requiring Catholic priests to report child abuse even if knowledge of the abuse was obtained during confession.

The law, Senate Bill 5375, was signed by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson on May 2, and would go into effect on July 27. The bill makes clergy mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect, much like doctors and teachers. Catholic bishops in Washington have condemned the law because it does not address the sacred rite of confession.

Under the law, if abuse is revealed during confession, the priest must report it to police or the state’s Department of Children, Youth and Families. However, in the Catholic faith, the Seal of Confession directs priests to keep anything they learn during confession secret—even under the threat of imprisonment or death. Should a priest fail to do so, they would be excommunicated.

“I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession – even to the point of going to jail. The Sacrament of Penance is sacred,” Bishop Thomas A. Daly of the Spokane, Washington diocese wrote in a statement.

READ MORE: Pedophile Priest Sex Abuse: Catholic Churches Settle For $102 Million

A previous version of the bill did include a provision protecting priests from revealing anything learned during confession. Catholic bishops and Republicans in the state senate argued for the provision, but it was ultimately removed. All Republicans voted against the final version of the bill, along with two Democrats; it passed 28-20. Though the law requires priests to report abuse, it does not compel them to testify in court.

In response, a number of bishops filed a lawsuit, Etienne v. Ferguson, to stop the law. On June 16, a group of Orthodox churches in Washington state filed a similar lawsuit.

Gov. Ferguson, a Catholic, said he was dismayed by the suit.

“I’m disappointed my Church is filing a federal lawsuit to protect individuals who abuse kids,” Ferguson said.

The Department of Justice joined the fray on Monday. The DOJ called the law “anti-Catholic,” saying it violates the First Amendment. Monday’s suit is a motion to intervene in Etienne v. Ferguson.

“Senate Bill 5375 unconstitutionally forces Catholic priests in Washington to choose between their obligations to the Catholic Church and their penitents or face criminal consequences, while treating the priest-penitent privilege differently than other well-settled privileges. The Justice Department will not sit idly by when States mount attacks on the free exercise of religion,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement.

Senate Bill 5375 is the third time the Washington senate was asked to make clergy mandatory reporters. The bill’s prime sponsor was Sen. Noel Frame (D-Seattle), who told KING-TV she brought the newest version before the Senate after hearing that three different Catholic archdioceses in the state were under investigation over allegations of covering up abuse.

“Quite frankly, that made it hard for me to stomach any argument about religious freedom being more important than preventing the abuse, including the sexual abuse of children,” Frame said in January. “I really wonder about all the children who have been abused and neglected and have gone unprotected by the adults in their lives because we didn’t have a mandated reporter law and that we continue to try to protect this in the name of religious freedom.”

Image via Shutterstock

The Federal Trade Commission announced a strange condition of the merger between two giant advertising companies. The FTC allowed the merger, but blocked the new company from being able to boycott media outlets based on political viewpoints.

The FTC announced Monday that Omnicom Group would be able to go ahead with its $13.5 billion purchase of The Interpublic Group of Companies. The merger faced antitrust concerns as the two companies are major players in the advertising industry. Currently, Omnicom is the third-largest ad agency in the United States, and IPG is fourth-largest.

Assuming the acquisition continues as planned, the enlarged Omnicom would be blocked from “engaging in collusion or coordination to direct advertising away from media publishers based on the publishers’ political or ideological viewpoints,” the FTC said.

READ MORE: Right Wing Lobbying Organization Pushing States to Shield Companies From Political Boycotts

“Websites and other publications that rely on advertising are critical to the flow of our nation’s commerce and communication,” Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said. “Coordination among advertising agencies to suppress advertising spending on publications with disfavored political or ideological viewpoints threatens to distort not only competition between ad agencies, but also public discussion and debate. The FTC’s action today prevents unlawful coordination that targets specific political or ideological viewpoints while preserving individual advertisers’ ability to choose where their ads are placed.”

The new rule comes after Elon Musk, the owner of the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, complained that advertisers were boycotting the platform. Last August, X filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a coalition of advertisers, for boycotting X following Musk’s purchase of the company. Founding members of GARM include both Omnicom and IPG.

GARM was originally formed in response to the mass shooting in a Christchurch, New Zealand mosque by a white supremacist. The shooting was livestreamed on Facebook, and as such, advertisements appeared on the platform alongside the livestream. GARM aimed to block members’ advertisements from appearing on platforms that didn’t have safeguards prohibiting what the organization called “illegal or harmful content, such as promoting terrorism or child pornography.”

Days after the X lawsuit, GARM disbanded.

“GARM has disbanded under a cloud of litigation and congressional investigation. The Commission has not been a party to those actions, and I take no position on any possible violation of the antitrust laws by GARM. The factual allegations, however, if true, paint a troubling picture of a history of coordination—that the group sought to marshal its members into collective boycotts to destroy publishers of content of which they disapproved,” FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said Monday.

“GARM was neither the beginning nor the end of harmful and potentially unlawful collusion in this industry. Numerous other industry groups and private organizations have publicly sought to use the chokepoint of the advertising industry to effect political or ideological goals. Clandestine pressure campaigns and private dealings among these parties are less well documented but pose the serious risk of harm and illegality,” he added.

The proviso to the Omnicom merger is not the FTC’s only foray into this issue. This May, the FTC opened an investigation to determine whether or not advertisers coming together in agreement to not buy ads on certain websites due to political content constituted an illegal boycott, according to the New York Times.