The Founding Fathers were clear about lots of things, but in the era of modern warfare, who calls the shots and has the final say to head into battle was not the Founders' most crystalline moment.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "declare War." But Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution anoints the President "Commander in Chief."

Constitutional scholars argue that Congress must adopt a resolution before sending service personnel into hostilities abroad under the aegis of "war." But what if you just dispatch B-2 bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to fly halfway around the world and slingshot 14 bunker buster bombs into three of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Or if you greenlight Ohio Class subs to fire 30 Tomahawk missiles into Iran as well?

TRUMP RECEIVES MIXED SUPPORT FROM CONGRESS FOR IRAN STRIKES AS WAR POWERS DEBATE RAGES

Are you "at war?" Does the president have the authority to do that? What about Congress?

Well, if you say the president — or Congress — both can be right.

Or wrong.

"I'm someone who believes in the Constitution and the War Powers Act," said Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., on Fox. "(President) Donald Trump did not declare war. He has the right as commander-in-chief to execute a very surgical process."

SENATE GOP AIMS TO APPROVE MAJOR LEGISLATION NEXT WEEK AS TRUMP TOUTS PARTY UNITY 

Mace noted "there were no troops on the ground."

But then the South Carolina Republican added this:

"The 2001 AUMF is still in place. If we didn't like it, then Congress should get rid of it," said Mace.

OK. Hold on.

We know what "troops on the ground" is. We think (think) we understand what "declaring war" is (or do we?).

But pray tell, what in the world is an "AUMF?"

That’s congressional speak for an "Authorization for Use of Military Force."

It’s kind of like Congress "declaring war." Both the House and Senate must vote to "declare war."

Transom windows, pie safes and coal chutes in homes all started to become obsolete in the 1940s.

So did "declaring war," apparently.

Congress hasn’t "declared war" since 1942.

And that was against Romania.

In fact, the U.S. has only "declared war" 11 times in history.

And Congress doesn’t just "declare war." Both the House and Senate must vote. And so what the modern Congress does now is approve an "authorization" to send the military into harm’s way overseas. That could be by sea. Troops on the ground. In the air. You name it.

Congress authorized the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. That was the gateway to years of fighting in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. More recently, Congress blessed an authorization to invade Afghanistan and wage the "war on terror" in 2001 after 9/11. Lawmakers followed that up in the fall of 2002 for authorization to invade Iraq — on suspicion that Saddam Hussein’s regime had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. and its allies found nothing after the 2003 invasion.

To Mace’s point, the 2001 AUMF is so broad that four American presidents have deployed it for various military action around the world. Mace’s argument would be that Iran or its proxies could launch terrorism attacks — or even a nuclear weapon somewhere. So, the 2001 AUMF is justification for American involvement.

That said, most foreign policy and military experts argue that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are calcified, legislative relics.

This is why it’s a political kaleidoscope about how various lawmakers felt about launching attacks on Iran and if Congress must get involved.

Democrats who usually oppose President Trump supported airstrikes.

"I've been saying, ‘Hell yes’ for I think it's almost six weeks," said Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., is one of the most pro-Israel lawmakers from either party.

"This window is open now," said Wasserman Schultz before the attack. "We can't take our boot off their neck."

But possible strikes worried lawmakers even before the U.S. launched them. There’s concern the conflagration could devolve into a broader conflict.

"The idea that one strike is going to be adequate, that it's going to be one and done, I think is a misconception," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

Before the conflict, bipartisan House members just returned from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

"They are worried that this will escalate," said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb. "And it wouldn't take a whole lot for it to spiral out of control."

This is why Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., wanted the House to vote on their resolution before the U.S. attacked Iran.

"I wouldn't call my side of the MAGA base isolationists. We are exhausted. We are tired from all of these wars. And we’re non-interventionists," said Massie on CBS.

"You're wasting billions of our dollars because we're sending more troops to the Middle East. What did you accomplish? And why are you oblivious to the American people who are sick of these wars?" said Khanna, also on CBS.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., didn’t mention Trump by name, but in a screed posted on X, she excoriated the decision to strike Iran.

"Only 6 months in and we are back into foreign wars, regime change, and world war 3. It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities that MAGA hates and who were NEVER TRUMPERS!" wrote Greene.

Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, also questioned the authority of the president to fire on Iran.

"While President Trump’s decision may prove just, it’s hard to conceive a rationale that’s Constitutional," wrote Davidson on social media.

But when it came to Republicans criticizing those who went against Trump, most GOPers took on Massie.

"I'm not sure what's going on with Thomas. He votes no against everything," said Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., on Fox Business. "I'm not sure why he's even here anymore."

"He should be a Democrat because he's more aligned with them than with the Republican Party," said White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt on Fox about Massie.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Shooing away Republicans toward the Democratic Party could be a questionable strategy considering the narrow GOP House majority. It’s currently 220 to 212 with three vacancies. All three vacancies are in districts heavily favored by the Democrats.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., plans to compel the Senate to vote this week on a resolution to determine if the U.S. should tussle militarily with Iran.

"We will have all members of the Senate declare whether or not the U.S. should be at war with Iran. It's unconstitutional for a president to initiate a war like this without Congress," said Kaine on Fox. "Every member of Congress needs to vote on this."

Whether the U.S. is involved in "war" with Iran is an issue of debate. And here’s the deepest secret: Lawmakers sometimes preach about exercising their war powers authorities under Article I of the Constitution. But because votes about "war" or "AUMFs" are complicated, some members would rather chatter about it — but cede their power to the president. The reason? These are very, very tough votes, and it’s hard to decide the right thing to do.

The Founders were skeptical of a powerful executive. They wanted to make sure a "monarch," or, in our case, a president, couldn’t unilaterally dial up hostilities without a check from Congress. But over time, Congress relinquished many of those war powers. And that’s why the executive seems to call the shots under these circumstances.

Is the U.S. at war? Like many things, it may be in the eye of the beholder.

And whether this responsibility ultimately lies with Congress or the president is in the eye of the beholder, too.

Anti-Israel activist Mahmoud Khalil said that his immigration detention "felt like kidnapping" in his first interview since being released.

"All the ‘Know Your Rights’ information and fliers I read and familiarized myself with were useless," Khalil told the New York Times in an article published Sunday. "There are no rights in such situations." 

"It felt like kidnapping," he added.

Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student, was released on bail from an immigration detention center on Friday following an order by U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz, who said it was "highly, highly unusual" to keep a legal U.S. resident in custody who doesn’t have accusations of violent offenses or that he's a possible flight risk. 

NEWLY RELEASED MAHMOUD KHALIL SPOTTED BACK AT ANTI-ISRAEL PROTEST AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

In March, Khalil was arrested at Columbia over his anti-Israel activism on campus, and an immigration judge ruled he could be removed from the country based on a memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that said his campus protests were not aligned with U.S. foreign policy interests.

The Department of Homeland Security has also said that Khalil purposely did not reveal that he was employed with the Syrian office in the British Embassy in Beirut when he applied for permanent U.S. residency.

Khalil told the New York Times that his anti-isael protests were not "antisemitic."

"I was not doing anything antisemitic," Khalil said. "I was literally advocating for the right of my people. I was literally advocating for an end of a genocide. I was advocating that the tuition fees that I and other students pay don’t go toward investing in weapons manufacturers. What’s antisemitic about this?"

He also said he did not think that his efforts would be challenged. 

JUDGE ORDERS ANTI-ISRAEL RINGLEADER MAHMOUD KHALIL TO BE RELEASED ON BAIL

"I came here with a clear understanding of freedom of expression," he said. "Even when it comes to Palestine. I never had any sort of concern that speaking up for Palestine would actually get me in jail."

Rubio has defended the Trump administration's apprehension of Khalil, saying that if someone applies for a visa to the United States and riles up anti-Semitic activities, their visa will be denied or revoked. 

"It was very ironic. I literally laughed," he said, adding, "What did I do that I’m a foreign policy threat to the United States? Did I, like, damage, the U.S.-Israeli relationship? Because it doesn’t appear so."

He told the New York Times that he believes money determines justice in America. 

"If you have money, there is rule of law," he said. "If you are abiding by the very narrow definition of what this administration is defining an American value to be, you may get rule of law. Otherwise you have to fight tooth and nail to get your due process and your rights."

Fox News’ Brie Stimson contributed to this report.