Roughly referring to the war powers resolution enacted in 1970. That law is complicated. One of the things it does is says if the president puts troops abroad into hostilities and we havent been attacked, if he does that, he needs to follow the law which says notify congress. Tell them what youre doing. Justify it. Whats the legal authorization and whats next . How long will they be there and so forth . Thats what the president claimed to be doing which is to say i notify you were on which doesnt quite meet the qualifications and requirements in the law . Democrats on capitol hill te seeking to declassify that information. What are the rules of what can be made public and declassified . That gets into a whole host of issues in the law. What was at issue with the president is typically when president s either comply with the war powers resolution or act as if theyre complying, usually its a Public Document so it can be made available to justify to the public what has been happening as well as to inform top leaders in congress. Take us back to the passage of the war powers resolution, 1973. What was the reason it was passed . What was congress seeking to do then . Well, go back to 73. We have a republican president nixon. We have a Democratic House and democratic senate, very large democratic majorities. We have a war in Southeast Asia that has been waging for decades. Democrats in congress with republican support are almost essentially at wits end in terms of trying to reign in what they referred to as the imperial presidency, the ability of president nixon to wage war without constraint from congress. Thats the context in which Congress Tries to reassert itself. They reassert on budget, on war powers. Its an effort to try to find whats the grounds on which we can assert our power given that the president is also the commander and chief under the constitution. Was it a bipartisan reasserting of Congress Power in 1973 . Thats what from todays perspective is remarkable. There are bipartisan majorities to pass it the first time. Then president nixon vetoed. We needed two thirds to override the veto. Can you translate this for us . This is from the war powers act. The constitutional powers of the president to introduce the United States armed forces into hostilities are exercised pursuant to a declaration of war or a National Emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or arm forced. The congress is trying to lay out the conditions under which president s might need to commit troops in harms way abroad. Theyre laying out various ways that might be justified. Eminent attack, actual attack, selfdefense. Theres the sense from congress theyre not going to interfere with the president s committing if its like pearl harbor. Theyre saying if youre going to commit troops, you need authorization from congress. Whats the difference between declaration of war and the statute . The constitution gives congress the power to declare war. In u. S. History we declared war maybe five times. President s have committed troops hundreds of times. Short of a declaration of war, world war i and world war ii, in episodes where president s and law makers may disagree is this war, often congress will write a limited authorization. In 2001 in the wake of 9 11. 2002 when the Bush Administration wants to attack in iraq. Historically isolated episodes where Congress Gives the president oftentimes blank checks, but openended authorization to wage war so congress doesnt feel compelled to write a whole declaration of war. War power and our congress is our topic. Professor sarah binder with us. A good time to call in with questions. Shes here to help answer them. As folks are calling in, democrats promising new legislation to limit President Trump when it comes to iran. This was senator tim kaine on the floor yesterday. Ill state my conclusion. I believe that the u. S. Should not be at war with iran and that another war in the middle east would be catastrophic. I recognize some of my colleagues may have a different point of view. So i speak in the hopes of forging a consensus on one issue. That issue is this if theres a war with iran, it should not be initiated by this president or any president acting on his or her own. It should only be initiated by a vote of Congress Following an open and public debate in full view of the American People. Every member of congress should vote and then be accountable for the question of whether another war in the middle east is a good idea. The demand for congressional accountability is constitutionally required. The framework that we have, we pledge to support and defend the principal. Its up to congress to declare war, not the president. If we engage in a war, the odds are high that Young American men and women will be killed and injured. Some will see their friends killed and injured. Some will have the remainder of their lives affected by physical and emotional injuries, posttraumatic stress, the pain of losing friends. Their families and friends will bare those scars as well. If we order our troops to run that risk, it should be a public consensus. If Congress Debates the matter in full view of the public and reaches the conclusion that a war is necessary, so be it. Even if i were to vote no, if the majority of my colleagues voted yes, i would agree that the decision to go to war was a legitimate basis to order our best and brightest into harms way. Senator tim kaine on the floor of the senate yesterday. What can democrats do and what cant they do when it comes to limiting the president s war making ability . First they can go down the legislative path and the second is a public path. What senator kaine is doing is to follow the requirements under the war powers resolution which lays out a series of steps by which congress could challenge the president s decision to put troops into hostilities. What hes suggesting they do is under the war powers resolution each chamber consider a joint resolution of disapproval. In essence that would tell the president youve got 30 days to keep those troops and then bring them back home. House would have to pass it. Senate would have to pass it. Its protected under the law. It gives some sort of speed ramp on to the senate floor. The republicans cant just block it. There will be votes according to the ways that law works. However, the way the law works today is the president has the opportunity to sign or veto a resolution blocking his waging of war against iran. Then it would be a matter of whether there was enough to overcome that veto . Absolutely. Most observers dont expect too Many Republican votes here. Although republicans, over two dozen of them in the house, earlier back in 2019 in the a abstract voted that way. That action is being led by congresswoman elissa stotkin. She served multiple tours in the middle east. That was her picture on the screen. Lets chat with a few callers. Cindy is up first in norwalk, connecticut, a republican. Caller hi, professor. Thank you for your input. I have a question for you. What is the difference between what President Trump did and what president obama did taking out gaddafi . I feel like theres a total lack of grace. I think the polarization i dont know if there could be any fair determination when it comes to stripping the president of his power to act without Congressional Authority here. Thanks for the question. Thats a great question. Its a great question because its complicated. President s and law makers and lawyers and white house lawyers have disagreed about what are comparable cases here. Even in the case where there were bombings of libya during the earlier, those were contentious too. There was the question of whether that would come under the war powers resolution. Theres no easy answer here. Its the case that the president s partisans and supporters of the administration often want to do their best to insulate president s and say the war powers resolution doesnt apply in certain circumstances. That gets into the legalese. Luckily for me im not trained to go into that. These are political questions for the rest of us. Theyre tough ones. Theyre very tough because they can be interpreted in all ways. To holland, michigan. Good morning. Caller good morning, john and sarah. We support President Trump. Hes based in reality. They got Nuclear Weapons in venezuela now. This is like october 1962 when there were missiles in cuba. They cannot tie our president s hands. They have to have a strong president. We have to support our presidency and the military. Thats my comments. Thank you. Have a wonderful day. Do you see parallels to the cuban missile crisis . Well, i would be hardpressed to draw all these lines and to weave those altogether. Keep in mind that in these periods of polarization were much less likely to see this rally around the president that the listener refers to. There was the suggestion we rally around the president in times of war. We have see that historically. We see it less and less because partisans disagree about the president s actions and about priorities. When did that start do you think . Well, its hard to know when it started relative to what were the events. Certainly the attack on pearl harbor. 9 11 is the most salient episode we have in our minds today. That unity lasted in the capitol for a little while on measures related to the war in response to 9 11. It dissipated pretty quickly. The further you got from questions of war, the patriot act and so forth, these internal divisions between the partyinie emerged quickly. Were talking war powers with sarah binder, a Political Science professor at George Washington university. Were having this conversation when house and Senate Leaders are set to be briefed on actions in iran and the day before senators and house members will be briefed. General mark milley expected to be in on that briefing tomorrow along with secretary of state mike pompeo, defense secretary mark esper and gina haskill all expected tomorrow. If you have questions this morning, nows a good time to call in. This is linda out of ohio, a republican. Good morning. Caller good morning, john. Sarah, im confused on a few things. I understand you have to have a congress if youre going to go to war. The American People have the right to know that. When you have to do a strike because somebody is going to take a bunch of americans out, why cant the president have the right to do that . He dont have time to ask congress. Can you explain that to me, sarah . Thank you very much. Youre doing a good job of what youre explaining. Thank you very much. Excellent. Thats covered in the war powers resolution which gives the administration and the president 48 hours which can be long or short depending on what is going on. It gives the president 48 hours to send notification to congress. Hes supposed to consult prior. Theres supposed to be advanced warning. What the law wants is within 48 hours to be told whats the justification, why is this happening and how long will it last roughly speaking. Theres recognition in the law that president s as commanders in chief cant have their hands tied behind their backs, but the law aims to Bring Congress into those decisions about whether its a good use of troops or not. Senator Lindsey Graham on twitter yesterday around noon, i will oppose any war powers resolution pushed by Speaker Pelosi to allow this president latitude. The last thing this country needs is 535 commanders in chief. Theyve elected expressing a view that many lawmakers in the abstract probably agree with which is we dont expect congress to be commanders in chief. But and we see that in part, right . When was the last time they passed a broad authorization for use of force. That was 2001. Many lawmakers say why dont we rewrite that reauthorization . You heard senator kaine on the floor yesterday saying that. Its time to talk about and authorize particular uses of force. But the sentiment that congress should be wages the war and making tactical decisions, absolutely, i dont think theres much disagreement within congress. But these are momentous decisions, and president s do better when they have popular support. And one key mechanism in our system is for lawmakers to debate, deliberate, and take stands on it so they can be held accountable for those solutions. Why is it so hard to pass an amuf . Why has it been 17 years at this point . I think lawmakers dont want their fingerprints on tough decisions if things go wrong. They think its better for them politically if they blame the administration if things go wrong or rally with them if things go right. It undermines how military troops get put into harms way. To utah, casey in mid vail, a democrat. Caller good morning. My question for sara is how does the role, the office of the president , how does the power of the president expand during declarations of war in our country . Well, keep in mind that under the constitution, article 2, the president is the commander in chief. So, there is the expectation, certainly the modern expectation that the administration is in full command of the logistics and strategies and implementation of war. So, if we were in a situation where on that rare situation where Congress Actually votes for declaration of war, it is essentially the public authorization, it is the public justification to allow the president to go forward, understanding that president s as commanders, very hard to constrain them even in the absence of a declaration of war. To ron in new hampshire, an independent. Good morning. Caller good morning. Thank you for taking my call. Ever since world war i, the assassination of a high official is an um ambiguous declaration of war. The president just unlawfully declared war. Its against the law for him to do that. And we need to let the world know that this president is rogue. He does not represent the people. The people have the authority to declare war, not the president. And we need to let the world know that were trying to take him out, were going through the process in congress, and iran, if youre listening, i hope you can find the courage to do us a favor though. Youll be richly rewarded by the press. Hows that for parody. Ron in new hampshire. Very, very strong feelings waged by this president and by this issue of soleimani and the issue with what to do with regard to iran. And again, the questions of the legality here, even the definition of what is an assassination which is prohibited under both executive orders and legal laws, even that can be contested which is an area go into. But these are complicated, very complicated. What constitutes imminent threat . Weve heard this term, imminent threat, when it comes to what happened last week and general soleimani. What is an imminent threat . How it is defined in the constitution or elsewhere . So, it wouldnt be in the constitution so, we get into areas of kind of legal and the state Department Lawyers and white house lawyers and how that happens. But the concept is quite is understandable, which is even though it may be that u. S. Troops havent been attacked recently, there is a sense or intelligence suggests that haas tilts could be on us. Asked if the imminent threat is now gone in the wake of the killing of the iranian general last week. This is what he said. Oh, i think as long as there are bad actors in the world, there are always threats to americans, and the iranians have been making many, many threats to the United States over the past several days. We take those seriously and were watching and monitoring them. We hope and weve sent a message that that will not be well received. The president s been very clear in his message, and we hope that theyre deterred and that they think twice about attacking america and its interests. If there are always threats to americans, if there are bad actors, are they always imminent threats . I think that is what has frustrated in part democratic lawmakers on capitol hill who want specificity and they want it in a classified document so it can be shared and discussed. Thats one of the difficulties of knowing where and when and what circumstances the war powers act can be followed and when should the president have more leeway since, as the constitution gives both branches powers here, very, very difficult. And it doesnt get any easier, but very, very difficult to make those choices. And the two branches and the two parties have very different views about how to react in those circumstances. Bridge water, new jersey, republican. This is john, good morning. Caller sarah, good morning, john, good morning, excellent. Once again, trump has been underrated. Hes fainted. He deferred action on some minor provocation. But then went big when it counted. Imagine mr. Soleimani getting in his car and saying where are we going to have dinner . The next thing hes obliterated. Beyond that, sarah, your assessment, i dont think iran is capable of waging war against america, and i think they understand power and respect power. Thats the way it is in the middle east. Well, youve tapped into what i think is one of the big discussion topics the attack which is what will and how will the iranians respond on what timetable will they respond, how will they respond, and what has the administration done to anticipate those types of responses . What strategy is in place . I think in particular given that both president s in both parties have the had the opportunity to eliminate soleimani, the question is why didnt they and why is it different with this president . You can call in 2027488000, republicans, 2027488001, independents, 2027488002. I want to shift to a different topic we talked about last segment. Josh hawley of missouri yesterday introduced legislation to dismiss the articles of impeachment for lack of prosecution, saying the house needs to transmit them within 25 days or they can be dismissed. I wonder your thoughts on the senates ability to do that in a process that is actually laid out in the constitution. Well, the senate, it seems, and as senator majority leader mcconnell said as well, the senate cant hold a tr