Page 42 - Chris John News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

>> other members of congress knew. they could have stood up and tried to block it. they didn't. >> you can't say i talked to three or four members of congress and then i launched a war unilaterally. >> why wasn't congress trying to stop it before it happened? >> he did this unannounced, chris. the constitution is very clear. whatever you think of congress, the constitution is clear. congress declares war. if you let a president just do it yunilaterally whenever he wakes up and thinks it is a good idea, you are going to have chaos. and the reason you do a war declaration is three-fold. first, i...

That would not cover action against the sovereign nation of syria. there is going to have to be a separate discussion about that. >> logically that would make sense. but can you at least acknowledge that you, mccain, a handful of others are an exception, not the rule. that since that vote for the war in iraq that so many have had to pay a price for, in general, congress has shirked its constitutional duty to own declarations of war, and you have seeded power to presidents who are only too happy to take it, which is understandable. >> chris, i will agree with you now. i'm with you. this has bee...

As soon as he has the opportunity, he blows by the constitutional requirement. he's got to come up to congress and put a plan on the table so we could see where this is going. >> i hear you on this, and i know that you have been an advocate to debate the authorization for use of military force anew. you have pointed out that it doesn't make sense anymore. but you have to own that the house and the senate have wilted on this issue time and again since reagan, bush, clinton. and you have allowed them to abuse it. >> chris, let me say to you, so what? does the constitution matter? does it matter?...

Treaty they signed. it was in furtherance of international law that says you cannot use chemical weapons against anyone, not to mention innocent civilians. >> now, those may be compelling political arguments but do you think they are compelling legal arguments? what empowered the united states to take military action against syria? what international law allows the un to strike out? >> chris, there is no legal justification for this. i think from a moral standpoint absolutely i agree with senator rubio. it was the right thing to do. it is the right thing to do to try to deter assad from war cr...

It has about specific threat to the homeland. that's what it was about and it became an extended justification of allowing presidents to go abroad in furtherance of national interests that have been encroaching past constitutional limits and internationally, what legal authority is there for allowing the united states to unilaterally enforce international law without un approval? >> well, again, the united states is a part of the united nations. >> they didn't vote on this. >> there is a number of resolutions, a number of -- >> one that would allow this action in syria, and they wouldn't vote ...