When you bomb a country and take out its leader, that’s an act of war.

Under the Constitution, Congress must declare war or otherwise authorize the use of force before the president may take such action. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Iran, where the joint U.S.-Israeli attacks that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei have already led to retaliation; Venezuela, where the Trump administration grabbed President Nicolás Maduro in January; or Libya, where the Obama administration participated in the 2011 bombing campaign that led to the removal of Muammar Qaddafi. And it doesn’t matter whether the ruler is morally repugnant or a confirmed lifelong enemy of the U.S. It’s still a war for purposes of the Constitution, not to mention international law.

Back when the Constitution was written, Congress had not only the legal authority but also the power to ensure that the president didn’t initiate a war without its authorization. There was no standing army, so Congress had to raise and fund one. Congress also controlled the power of the purse, and no fighting could go on for long without a specific appropriation of funds.

In the modern world, as it emerged in the wake of World War II, presidents have access to the world’s most lethal arsenal and considerable military forces. A president who chooses to start a war without Congress’s say-so can often get away with it.

The tool that Congress created to constrain the president’s war-making authority is the War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed because Richard Nixon illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos, considerably expanding the scope of the Vietnam War without authority from Congress. The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of engaging in hostilities and then gives him 60 days to continue military operations. If Congress fails to authorize the use of force within that time, or if Congress, during that time, enacts a resolution blocking the action, the hostilities become formally unlawful.

House Democrats are now considering trying to pass exactly such a resolution regarding the new Iran war. Even if that passes, President Donald Trump won’t sign it. The days when Congress could pass the War Powers Resolution over Nixon’s veto seem like a relic of a remote past — because they are.

And presidents can also get away with ignoring the War Powers Resolution altogether. In 1999, President Bill Clinton continued bombing Kosovo for two weeks after the 60-day period had expired without securing congressional authorization.

More egregiously, President Barack Obama’s administration took the legal position that bombing Libya did not count as hostilities for purposes of the War Powers Resolution because the mission was “limited,” the attacks came from the air, and so “exposure of U.S. forces (was) limited.” Thus, “the risk of escalation” was limited, too. This was the State Department’s view under Hillary Clinton. It contradicted the views of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice and those of the Department of Defense.

Obama’s adoption of this legal theory opened the door for any president to engage in acts of war conducted from the air and claim that the War Powers Resolution does not apply — in other words, unilateral presidential war-making became de facto legal under the Obama position. Trump’s Iran attack shows exactly why this was such a historic mistake. Regardless of whether the current war with Iran lasts more than 60 days, it’s certainly a war. Regardless of whether it was a good idea, the Constitution requires Congress to be involved.

The problem is perhaps clearer now, at least to Democrats, because Trump has done more than any other president in history to make Congress irrelevant and govern without regard to law. But the problem was already in place before Trump. The legality of a presidentially ordered attack cannot depend on whether the Iranian regime collapses, as Qaddafi’s did, or manages to persist and fight an extended war against the U.S., as Iran’s might. Nor can it rest on the supposed invulnerability of U.S. forces, who are certainly in harm’s way now. War must be understood to mean war. Hostilities must be understood to mean hostilities.

To be clear, Congress should try to pass a War Powers Resolution, even if that effort turns out to be largely symbolic. It’s all that remains of Congress’s power to declare war. That power was fundamental to the Framers’ conception of a constitutional republic. Its loss changes the balance of powers within our constitutional order — and not for the better.

Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A professor of law at Harvard University, he is author, most recently, of “To Be a Jew Today: A New Guide to God, Israel, and the Jewish People.”

Related Articles

Amanda Cats-Baril: Warrantless home searches sparked the Revolution – now ICE wants to bring them back

Lisa Jarvis: What adults get wrong about girls and autism

Rich Harwood: As America turns 250, it’s time to begin again

Carl P. Leubsdorf: Trump’s threats to next November’s elections

Other voices: Killing of ‘El Mencho’ signals renewal in the US-Mexico relationship

In my household, we usually celebrate special occasions at a true St. Paul institution, Mancini’s Char House.

The free chips at Chi-Chi’s are thin and crispy, just the way you remember them. (Ross Raihala / Pioneer Press)

No slight to Mancini’s, but last month we tried a new restaurant for my birthday.

My partner Patric made the reservations weeks in advance for 5:30 p.m. on a brisk Tuesday. The early start gave us time to meet up with friends at my favorite bar, Tappers Pub in West St. Paul, later in the evening.

Despite the early hour and the chilly temperature outside, this place was hopping. It felt like Friday night, with a variety of folks — elderly couples, young families, small groups of friends — enjoying the food and atmosphere. Around 6, we overheard the hostess telling two would-be diners it would be a 45 minute wait. On a Tuesday night in the middle of February.

After we finished our meal, settled up the tab and enjoyed the free Andes mints, I asked our friendly but clearly slammed server if it was like all the time. Yup, he said, it’s been like this every night since the joint opened in October.

The hottest restaurant in the metro is none other than … Chi-Chi’s.

Restaurateur Marno McDermott and former Green Bay Packers player Max McGee opened the Tex-Mex restaurant in 1975 in Richfield. By 1995, it had expanded to more than 200 locations, many situated near a mall and next to a TGI Fridays and Olive Garden.

As a high schooler in Cloquet, I frequently spent Friday nights eating at the Chi-Chi’s at Fitger’s in Duluth, followed by whatever ’80s blockbuster that had just opened. A Kentucky native, Patric frequented one in Huntington, W. Va. We both celebrated our 16th birthdays at Chi-Chi’s. I fell in love with non-alcoholic margaritas as a teen and graduated to the real thing at countless happy hours while in college.

As I got older, I largely outgrew Chi-Chi’s in favor of more traditional Mexican fare. And I wasn’t alone. The chain had lived through several owners by 2003, when Chi-Chi’s filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. A month later, some bad green onions at a suburban Pittsburgh location led to the largest hepatitis A outbreak in the country’s history, with at least four deaths and hundreds of diners falling ill. A year later, the final 65 Chi-Chi’s closed for good.

Despite the inglorious ending, the Chi-Chi’s brand lived on through a decidedly mediocre jarred salsa available at grocery stores. But, apparently, the brand also lived on in the hearts of the hungry.

McDermott’s son Michael, a restaurant veteran himself, led the charge to bring Chi-Chi’s back and raised more than $2.3 million from some 2,000 people via crowdfunding. He opened the first of what’s promised to be many Chi-Chi’s at the Shops at West End in St. Louis Park in October.

As we scanned the crowd on my birthday, it was clear nostalgia was driving every last person in the place. You don’t end up dining at Chi-Chi’s in 2026 by accident.

The chicken fajitas at Chi-Chi’s are topped with enchilada sauce. (Ross Raihala / Pioneer Press)

The dinner began with the complimentary chips and salsa and I’m happy to say the chips remain every bit as thin and crispy as you remember them and the salsa was thankfully a step up from the jarred version. The menu offered old favorites like the Chimichanga and taco salad alongside quesabirria tacos, grilled Mexican street corn and other, more modern fare.

Yes, it’s still quite easy to pack on the calories and the sour cream and guacamole flow freely, but overall, the menu feels a little fresher than the old days of deep fried everything.

There’s always room for the fried ice cream for dessert at Chi-Chi’s. (Ross Raihala / Pioneer Press)

Patric went with a Baja combo plate ($24) with a short rib taco, cheese enchilada and beef enchilada. The enchiladas delivered a distinctly classic Chi-Chi’s vibe, but he thought the short rib taco was the best thing on the plate.

I’m a big fan of fajitas and I would eat them once a week if Patric let me. So, of course, I went with the chicken fajitas ($18), which arrived with a drizzle of enchilada sauce on top. Again, it brought to mind the Chi-Chi’s of my youth, although the onions could have stood more caramelization.

Both meals were quite hearty, but we saved room for dessert. I was disappointed that sopaipillas weren’t on the menu, but we settled on splitting the fried ice cream, a scoop of vanilla ice cream wrapped in cornflakes, dusted with cinnamon and surrounded by whipped cream. Like the chips and salsa, it served as an instant flashback to the late ’80s, in the best possible sense.

Will Chi-Chi’s replace Boca Chica as our go-to for Mexican fare? No, although if one opens closer to us in the east metro, I can see it becoming a place to visit occasionally, when we need a taste of the good old days.

Chi-Chi’s: 1602 West End Blvd., St. Louis Park; 952-657-5385; chichisrestaurants.com

Related Articles

Quick, bright dinners for winter days

5 dishes to make with a grocery rotisserie chicken

Recipe: This salad in a jar will add pizzazz to workday lunches

Rotisserie chicken meets grapes and pecans in a crisp romaine wrap

In this Minnesota city, it’s tradition to line up for ice cream even when it’s 6 degrees

These days, it can feel like Americans across the political divide cannot agree on much of anything.

But there is encouraging news: When it comes to the economic foundations of human progress and flourishing, we are not as divided as we might think.

Political polarization has become a defining feature of American life. More and more people are avoiding dating or befriending those with opposing political views, and growing numbers describe those on the other side as closed-minded, dishonest, immoral and unintelligent. This divide extends to economics, where debates over capitalism versus socialism are often defined by what team you are on rather than honest thinking about how to improve living standards.

Of course, political parties have long differed along economic lines. However, that divide has grown in recent decades, largely driven by Democrats souring on capitalism and becoming more favorable toward socialism. According to Gallup, from 2010 to 2025, Republican views on capitalism and socialism remained fairly stable, with favorable views of capitalism hovering between 71% and 74% and favorable views of socialism staying mostly below 20%.

Democratic views shifted more notably. Favorable views of capitalism fell from 51% to 42%, while favorable views of socialism climbed from 50% to 66%. This and similar polls suggest that the majority of Democrats now prefer socialism over capitalism.

Look beneath the surface, though, and a different story emerges. A 2019 Gallup poll found that while only 60% of Americans had a positive attitude toward capitalism, 87% had a positive attitude toward free enterprise, and 90% had a positive attitude toward entrepreneurs. The building blocks of capitalism appear to enjoy broad support even if the label doesn’t.

Our team at the Archbridge Institute’s Human Flourishing Lab wanted to explore this further. If you describe the core mechanics of capitalism and socialism without using those loaded labels, which system do Americans actually believe will advance human progress and flourishing?

To find out, in our latest Progress Pulse survey of over 2,000 American adults conducted in partnership with The Harris Poll, we presented two viewpoints:

One held that businesses competing freely in the marketplace, driven by private companies and entrepreneurs, are the best way to solve today’s big challenges and improve people’s lives. The other held that government agencies coordinating resources and setting priorities are the better path forward.

The results revealed more consensus than these polarized times might suggest. Though political differences emerged as expected, clear majorities of both Republicans (76%) and Democrats (60%) chose free markets, private companies, and entrepreneurship over government coordination and planning. Economic freedom won out across every demographic group we examined, even among young adults, who are often assumed to be socialism’s most receptive audience. Nearly 6 in 10 adults under 25 choose free markets, private companies and entrepreneurship.

So what is going on?

Part of the answer likely lies in how the meaning of these terms has shifted in public discourse. On the political left, capitalism has become increasingly associated with inequality, corporate power and corruption, and instability, while socialism is framed around equality, fairness and security. Entertainment media, long dominated by those on the political left, tend to depict capitalism as a destructive force. Inspiring entrepreneurial stories are told regularly, yet rarely acknowledged as products of the economic system that made them possible.

The result is a strange disconnect. Many who have grown skeptical of the word capitalism still embrace and celebrate the economic freedom that defines it.

Two paths forward are worth considering. One is rehabilitating the term capitalism, making a sustained case for what it actually means and what it has achieved. The other is simply bypassing the arguments over labels and centering public conversations on the ideas most Americans already embrace, namely entrepreneurship, innovation, free enterprise and individual agency. Given how deeply the word capitalism has been politicized in an already-divided country, the latter may be the more pragmatic near-term strategy, which could pave the way for an eventual reclaiming of the term itself.

Social psychologists use the concept of “superordinate identity” to describe a shared framework that transcends group divisions. When people tap into that kind of larger identity, they are more likely to set aside tribal loyalties and work together toward shared goals. Republicans and Democrats remain divided on many policies and priorities. However, our data suggest there is a shared economic foundation for a superordinate American identity. A belief in economic freedom that cuts across party lines could be the basis for more productive conversations about how to expand opportunity and remove barriers to entrepreneurship and social mobility.

Progress requires cooperation. And cooperation is facilitated by finding common ground. Most Americans already believe in the engine of prosperity. They just do not always agree on what to call it.

Justin Callais is chief economist and Clay Routledge is executive vice president and COO at the Archbridge Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. They wrote this column for the Chicago Tribune.

Related Articles

Amanda Cats-Baril: Warrantless home searches sparked the Revolution – now ICE wants to bring them back

Lisa Jarvis: What adults get wrong about girls and autism

Rich Harwood: As America turns 250, it’s time to begin again

Carl P. Leubsdorf: Trump’s threats to next November’s elections

Other voices: Killing of ‘El Mencho’ signals renewal in the US-Mexico relationship

Demolition crews are clearing a site on the border of Inver Grove Heights and South St. Paul that, according to preliminary talks, could find a second life as a data center.

A zoning and land use application for a data center was filed last week for the 14-acre site located at 5890 Carmen Ave. in Inver Grove Heights, which formerly housed a business known as Travel Tags. It rests on the border of South St. Paul, near the South St. Paul Municipal Airport.

Inver Grove Heights city staff said this week they had not completed a review of the application, which was received Feb. 26, and could not comment on what it includes. Zoning for the site in question currently allows for a data center as a permitted use.

The site was sold in December to Fortress Investment Group, a California-based investment firm. Fortress Investment Group is a subsidiary of Mubadala Investment Company, a state-owned investment fund of the government of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.

Travel Tags was founded in 1973 and began as a printing company for luggage tags and travel accessories. The business was purchased by the Glen Taylor-owned Taylor Corporation in 1993, and over the years pivoted to printing retail gift cards. Notably, the company became a printer for the gift cards sold by Apple Inc.

Speaking generally about the application process, Inver Grove Heights Community Development Director Jason Ziemer said the procedure is collaborative between city planning and engineering staff and the developer to ensure the project meets city standards.

“We do the best we can to collaborate with an entity to make sure that all the plans are completed, and that they’ve addressed all the particular comments that we have,” Ziemer said.

Once an application is deemed complete, the project would go before the planning commission. The commission’s recommendation would then go to the city council.

Based on the size of the Travel Tags land parcel, a data center would take a smaller form than other proposed sites elsewhere in Dakota County that have brought contention and outcry from local residents. For example, a particularly embattled data center development in Farmington covers some 340 acres, which is nearly 25 times the size of the former Travel Tags site.

Representatives for Fortress Investment Group declined comment regarding plans for the Carmen Avenue property.

Data center trends

Some data center projects in other cities have raised questions about non-disclosure agreements, and whether cities are signing them. Ziemer said Inver Grove Heights has not signed any non-disclosure agreements.

“Inver Grove Heights does not have any of that,” he said. “I’ve been here for a year and a half, almost two years, and that subject has never come up with any development that has come into the city.”

While data centers themselves have existed for decades, the rise of cloud computing has created a need for larger dedicated facilities. As of late, this trend has been compounded by the rise of artificial intelligence among tech titans like Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and Google. This has led to the rise of hyperscale data centers – like the Farmington project – massive sites with colossal energy and water demands for the intensive computation power required to operate A.I. applications.

Other types of data centers include “edge” data centers, smaller centers built near a business or its end users, named for being near the so-called edge of a network. There also are “enterprise” data centers, facilities for a single organization and its information technology team; and also “co-located” data centers, shared spaces where more than one company might subcontract and locate IT needs. There are data centers that focus on cloud computing, too.

Elsewhere in the county, the Eagan City Council recently passed a moratorium pausing any further data center development within the city for at least a year. Eagan city staff have said they plan to use the time to study long-term infrastructure impacts, and review how future data centers best fit within city zoning regulations. Aside from the hyperscale project in Farmington, work continues on a 280-acre development in Rosemount with Meta, Facebook’s parent company.

Dakota County data center review

Dakota County Commissioner Joe Atkins addressed the Inver Grove Heights data center scuttlebutt with a detailed Facebook post on Feb 24.

The County Board would not be in control of any approval decisions in this Inver Grove Heights project, but commissioners are set to hear a review of the impacts of data centers across the county at the board’s April 7 meeting.

For Atkins, he is concerned about regional issues like the demand data centers make on the power grid, water supply impacts and infrastructure planning.

Related Articles

Farmington police squad car involved in serious injury crash

St. Paul: Ex-gas station employee gets 3-year prison term for shooting 2 men during fight outside store

Waiting for a mentor: Zeek

‘It’s the work that paid off’: How ‘two-a-days’ all season led Simley to another state wrestling title

Lakeville teen charged with robbery at school allegedly had gun, though no weapon found

Residents had been asking him more often about the site, Atkins said, and while he again reiterated that county commissioners do not control city development decisions, he felt it was important to respond to his constituents by making the social media post.

When the County Commissioners review data center development across Dakota County in April, Atkins is hoping to see how all of the projects fit in the bigger scheme of anticipated impacts. He mentioned specifically energy costs and grid use, county water use, as well as potential economic impacts in terms of additional property tax proceeds, and added construction jobs during site development.

“I hope that will be the start of an ongoing conversation, and review, of all that we have going on with data centers,” Atkins said.