The bombs fell in our name before any of us knew. Then the president saw fit to inform us.

Legal scholars and politicians alike began debating whether they were constitutional. Markets responded within hours. Cities across the United States moved to heightened alert amid fears of retaliation.

The sequence matters.

In a constitutional system built on checks and balances, that system is supposed to constrain the use of military force before it unfolds. Instead, constraint is arriving afterward – if at all.

Lawmakers in the US are now invoking the war powers resolution. Constitutional scholars argue the strikes stretch or violate its limits. In private briefings, Pentagon officials reportedly told members of Congress there was no intelligence showing Iran was about to attack US forces first. That directly contradicts the urgency Donald Trump offered the public as justification.

When Congress and the rest of us dispute the justification for emergency action, the system should slow down. Instead, the president, in tandem with Israel, deployed force and the debate followed.

This is not only a question about Iran. The regression there is obvious: from a historic nuclear agreement reached under Barack Obama to acts of war (and possible war crimes). We must also consider whether the guardrails around presidential power still function as anything more than decoration.

In theory, they do. Congress declares war. The war powers resolution attempts to limit unilateral hostilities. Impeachment exists as a check against abuse. And even the........

© The Guardian