Earlier this summer, the Post asked our readers what issues you wanted to hear candidates in federal, state and local races address leading up to the Nov. 3 election.

Based on that feedback, we developed a five-item questionnaire centering the issues most important to residents across Johnson County.

Each day this week, we’ll publish the candidates’ responses to one question. So far, we’ve published responses on housing affordability.

Today, we’re publishing candidates’ responses to the following question:

The House has now voted three times to end U.S. involvement in the war with Iran, which Congress never authorized. Readers asked what the U.S. should be doing there and whether Congress has given up its war powers. What should the U.S. goal in Iran be, and would you vote to cut off funding if the war continues without authorization?

Below are the answers the Post received from candidates on the issue:

Steve Hohe (Libertarian)

The war with Iran started out as a First Strike mission from the intelligence the president received.

Did Iran create a Nuclear weapon/Device and did they achieve a potential of transporting it?

The maximum duration ofthe mission was 37 hours with 25 minutes in the Target Area. The U.S. was successful, but everything following that event has Americans wonder if it was too extreme.

Congress reaction to its continuation displays lack of interest in the conflict or how dumbfounded they are.

Someone in Congress should have immediately asked at least where the Executive Branch was going, plainly what’s the mission going forward and who in the Middle East was going to oversee policing in the region?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973, this requires that the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action, and generally limits unapproved 60 days to withdrawal, 90 days to withdrawal safely.

Congress wasn’t able to get the votes to end it and were really incapable to assess the situation.

What Congress should have done was to state that there is no visible path, thus no declaration of war and to stand down.

Sharice Davids (Democratic, incumbent)

My top priority will always be protecting American lives and keeping our troops out of another costly, endless war in the Middle East. That is why I voted to end this unauthorized war in Iran.

The Constitution gives Congress — not the Executive Branch — the sole authority over decisions of war and peace. Reckless military actions taken without a clear strategy or Congressional authorization put our service members in danger, destabilize global security, and drive up gas and grocery prices for hardworking families right here at home. When the administration openly ignores how these actions impact Americans’ financial security, it reveals a complete disconnect from kitchen-table realities. National security and economic security go hand in hand.

Our goal in Iran must be clear: prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, stop its support for regional terrorism, and protect U.S. personnel and allies through firm, targeted diplomacy and strategic sanctions. Unilateral military escalation without an end date makes us less safe and risks pulling us into a prolonged conflict.

We must focus on a clear, sustainable strategy that prevents nuclear proliferation, protects our troops, and brings economic relief to Kansas families.

Eric Jenkins (Republican)

Did not provide the Post with a response.

Coming up:

Tomorrow, we will publish the candidates’ responses to the following question:

Readers still disagree sharply on ICE. Some criticized members of Congress, including Democrats, who backed the Laken Riley Act and other enforcement measures. Other readers say they want every person here illegally to be deported. What specific limits, if any, would you place on ICE? What, if any, immigration enforcement would you expand?