montana scratched their heads trying to get into burned areas to salvage the timber. we know the clock is ticking. i've heard from many montanans who want the forest service to use your emergency situation determination authority to get more sooner. as you know, i encourage you to improve the requests for the fires in montana lastyear. can you provide an update on my requests for the ese approvals? >> thank you, senator daines. i'm quipleased with our staff i montana. they activated quickly. we put tgether strike teams to k salvage and work with the communities and with industry on what would be. >> we're going to break-away from this program to take you live to capitol hill for a senate subcommittee hearing. you can see there the hearing about to get underway.

a hebout whether or not a new authorization for military force is needed for the current military engagement. senator rand paul the chair live coverage on c-span3. >> i wanto thank everybody for attending. my father used to say there were two things youly heard in washington and that was moral argument or constitutional argument. so today we're going to discuss the constitution and how we go to war. and what is the constitution's approach to war. for years now, the critics have compld that tob war on terror has never been authorized by congress. after the attacks on 9/11, president bush did his constitutional duty and asked congress to authorize war against the people who attacked us on 9/11 or anyone who

harbored them or aided and abetted those who attacked us. if you read the authorization, it's specific. which originally asked for expansive language congress insisted on narrowing the mandate for those who attacked us or panned the attack or harbored th attackers. narrowly defined by the relationships to 11. authorization was not given for global war on terror or against radic radical islamists in various civil wars. authorization was not given for associated forces. authorization was specific and solely to be directed against the people who attacked us on 9/11 and anyone who helped or harbored them. period. it is safe to say that in congress believe that we w voting or they were voting for a war on ism0ome odd countries that would go on for decades. so intelligently honest observers have for years now

complain that the 9/11 authoration doeof war not cover the wars being fought throughout dozens of country in africa, the middle east, and the south pacific. basically the expansion of the war on terrorism really has occurred without thee constitutional authorization. senators corker, mccain, and others wish to rectify the lapse of in constitutional declaration of war by passing a new authorization for force. their motives are genune. but really there are two big issues here that need to be fully debated. number one, does it matterho wields the power to initiate war. our founding fathers believed strongly that it did. they squarely delegated the power to declare war to coss. madison put it this way. the executive is the branch most prone to war. therefore the constitution with studied care vtethat po, the power to declare war with

the legislature. so, yes, it is the job of congress to declare or initiate war and congress has been rm find ourselves involved in here the authorization fails us. the authorization is not the

against eight groups but says to the president, hey, you get back to us. give us an initial list in case we missed anyone we're currently at war with and if you want to add any associated forces to the list, please send us a report. so this authorization transfers the power to name the enemy and its location from congress to the president. wors yet, thisuthorizati changes the nature of declaring

war from a simple majority affirmative vote to require a super majority veto-proof vote to disapprove of presidential wars. if the president defines a new associated force our military will attack, the only way congress can stop the president is a two-trds vote to overcome his veto. the constitution is flipped on its head. the authorization transfers the degad power of war from congress to the president. the hearing today is convened to explore precisely that question. can congress transfer the power to declare war the president? in that context, we discuss the constitutionally of the -- i like to recognize the ranking member. >> thank you for calling today's heing. i to be imd with ness to have this subcommittee tackle the big issues. and no issue is certainly bigger

to send our s and ughters to war is the most important and the heaviest responsibility that a member of congress bears. we must never forget that while the sacrifice of war is born by service-members and their families, under article i section viii of the constitution the responsibility of asking for thatacfice is ours. and yet today our fore fighters are serving in harm's ways in plhatave never been named in any declaration of war and fing adversaries that cannot be found in any authorization of military force. the framers and their wisdom seted t power to declare war from the power to wage it. mr. chairman, as you've observed, the reality is that we are at war anywhere and any time the president says so. in failing to assert our war powers, we have effectively

seeded them to the power. seeding war powers to the resident is a way for us pla safe. in avoiding a declaration of war and keeping force authorization vague we can blame the president when things go wrong. we must not shirk our constitutional responsibility in favor of political expediency. we owe it to our service-members and our families to roll up their sleeves and have this debate. this is not a partisan issue nor should it be. congress hasn't ii. president obama did not seek congregational authorization for the use ofar fce in libya. nor did president trump seek congressional authorization for military action in syria. the 2001 autho o use of mill fair force against al qaeda has been united statessed by th presidents. ainst organizations that di'tven existen.it offends comm

mind. and that's why i supported senator paul'sffo repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations of the use of military force. the world has changed sincelast. our adversaries often wea no uniform and swear alleg to no nation. the technology of war has evolved in ways that would be unrecognizable to th it can world affairs with a drone strike directed remotely from inside the united states. how we authorize war must adapt noloes.changing threats a but the principle of separation of powers and animated the drafters of the constitution is as sound today a in 1789. the power to declare war and authorize military force is congress's most sacred responsibility. we must reclaim it. i know our witnesses spent a lot of time considering these issues and i'm eager to hear your

views. i want to know more about the cost of congressional inaction and ideas of reasserting our constitutional authorities. and i'm heartened by the birtisan engagement today and hopeful that we can find yield back. >> thank you,or. t me beg by noting several senators who are not on the subcommittee have requested to attend due to their interest to the important issue. therefore, i would like to ask unanimous consent to allow senators sanders, lee, and udall should they come to participate in the hearing. nano yest le tenured judge in the state of new jersey. following his service, he began teaching constitutional delaware w hool for two years. he was chosen by the student

bodys the most outstanding professor. he authored seven books on the u.s. constitution, lectures nationally on civil liber d ahe o enapotano, you're recognized for your opening statement. >> i asked my bosses to be here. they said we're dying to see bernie sanders cross examine you. you know me as a commentator on television. i've been a professor of law for a total of 16 years. i have published nine books on the constitution, and much of my

work has concentratensepaon o p often begins t first day of constitutional law by asking the students what's the most distinguishing feature of the american constitution? it's the first oaw ection ofricy.ay freedom ofspee. some of them may say due process. but i impose upon them t observation that even the constitutions ofotal indiana countries have that. only ours has the strict separation of powers. the structure of the constitution with the primacy of the congress in a i i ofound demonstration of the commitment of the founders to the sacred ideal and both senator peters has argued eloquently that the separation 's not always the practice.e l,

presidents have assumed they think they can use military force if they think it's popular because the congress will sit back and do nothing. gres looks the other way, as it did when president obama bombed libya and presiden trump bombed syria, this is effectively an amendment of the constitution by we consent by our silence to the president of the united states usurping the authority that the constitution gives to us. that authority is unmistakable. if madison was clear about anything, he was clear that the war power is the most awesome power that the government can wage and it can only be reposed

in the legislative branch. the very practical reason for that is war a failure when it lacks broad public support. and only the congress has its thumb on the pulse of the people to determine whether war has broad public support. the president and the senate have enacted treaties. if an attack is imminent, he doesn't have to wait for the first missile to come. if we've signed a treaty with the ally and the ally needs assistance immediately, he doesn't need coness's intervention because the treaty has been ratified. treaty is the equivalent to the constitution itself. but does the oth united states of america the power to bomb another country which poses no imminent threat tthe uned states of america. the answer is very clear and it's a loud andresounding no.

the president does not have that authority. when members of congress look the other way, it is either because of a belief that what the president is doing is popular. let him take the heat. belief what the president is doing is wise. we haven't been asked to get involved. we don't want to get involved. we're running for election soon. one may be popular. may unpopular. whatever is going through the minds of members of congress it's not fidelity to the constitution. i was interviewing a member of congress whose name i won't mention, at the very moment we broke into the broadcasting to announce that president was bombing libya. you're the same party of the president. what do you think about this? well, the president doesn't have the authority to do this. we know that. what are you going to do about

it? probably nothing. we're on spring break. he's in brazil. when thereak was over and the president returned from his trip to south america, nothing had happened except tha the constitution was weaker and the power of the president was stronger and gadhafi was about to be killed in a horrific way. if gadhafi was so evil he ought to be killed by american forces, only the congress can unleash the forces. madison could not have been clearer. what troubles me the most is the value that comes about when congress looks the other way. i'm not here to criticize president trump. this is not an argument about politics. this is an argument aut principle. but he had reason to believe that congress would do nothing because congress did nothing in these other instances in which

presidents went to war. mr. chairman, i would argue that the aumf they don't have an end point. they unleash the president to pursue what it wants for as long as he wishes to do so. i would encourage you to repeal those aumf t them with corker/cane. as you yourself, mr. chairman, have pointed out, at the present time thepresident, you know, goes around the world -- and i don't mean president trump. presidents go around the world looking foronsters to slay. when it's popular or moral they slay them and congress does nothing about it. but when this behavior becomes a precedent for a future president to do it, when a president in this era can rely on a document

of no moral or legal value like the two aumf and the congress does nothing about it, the constitution is being amended by consent. i only have a few seconds left. corker/cain, look if the congress decides to withdraw funds for some military excursion, the president will veto the act of withdrawal and require two thirds vote of both houses to overcome that. so a president with one-third plus one in either house can wage war onny tar at any time the president chooses to do so. that is so contrary to what madison in. so contrary to the plain meaning of the constitution. so violative of the separation of powers to be rejection of the oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. and none of you want to reject that oath. i look forward tour questio yous

after hearing from my learned colleagues. >> thank you. our next witness is professor turly. nationally recognized legal scholar written extensively in the scholar of international law. homeland security and tial es. d testified beforehe house and senate on constitutional and stat tu tore statutory issues. and the second mostit law professor in the united states. welcome, professor turly. >> thank you, chairman. ranking member peter, members of the committee. it's a great honor to comment to this econocommittee to speak ab this issue of the constitution. indeed, if there is a sacred article of the institution, it is article 1, section 8. it's not merely a constitutional but a moral responsibility.

indeed, the words congress shall have no power to declare war fails to capture the imperative. it's not a power but simply a ol gauges meant to adhere to each member. when you raise your hand and you take your oath of office. at the earlier es stages republic members started to struggle with this responsibility. regrettably, sjres 59 is ultimate and perhaps inevitable end to that process. the new aumf amounts to a statutory revision of one of the most defining elements of the united states constitution. we find ourselves at this moment not by accident, but by decades of concerted effort by members of this institution to evade the responsibilities given to them by the framers of our constitution. the result is that our citizens are taught, our children are

taught false assertion that members of this body will declare war and have the sole responsibility to do that. after all, the provision speaks loudly to that, clear will i to th wh does, and what past aumfs have done is reduce that very loud declaration of your responsibility to what mcbeth referred to as voices sound and furry and signifying nothing. my written testimonyails the express intent of the framers. i just simply know one aspect that i find most telling. we have plenty of quotes from my favorite framer, james madison, but for virtually every amer, this is o othe few points hich there was almost unnimty. i say almost because pierce butler actually proposed to give this entire power to the president of the united states. he didn't receive a second.

he spoke to a room of framers and made that proposal and not a single one seconded that motion. that was one of the most important moments of our republic. that silence, the absence of a second, shows where we began of thatof conscious and principle he haad to strike this compromise, to restrict the powers of the presidency, and to give this sacred duty to this institution. but of course it's ha to see how that expressed language got us to where we are today in almost 250 years we've had five declared wars. only 11 declarations in those five wars. it began poorly. we gnt get out of the 18th century before members of this institution found ways to get around this duty. when john adams wanted to start the quasi war, to his credit they did put forth legislation

that referred specifically to the french vessels that cob bordered, but it wasn't a declaration, so we weren't out of the 18th century before politicians found a way to get around this duty. now, our last declaration was in 1942 and has made ha mockery out of george washington in 1793 when he said constitution declaring war in congress and added this, therefore, no offensive expitnf importance, no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until they have deliberated upon the subject auasure. we have made aockery of that statement. we h mockery of article 1 in section 8. now, before i mentioned some of the flaws i have seen in this legislation and i want to know one thing and this reflects my friend in terms of what he had said. there is a path dependence with

amuf assumption we should only be debating the scope and standards by which a president has to satisfy. there is still tt original question. many of us do have constitutional reservations about the aumfs. if anything, the wisdom of the framers has been made evident in our modern history. we are at war every where always. we have forever war. that wasn't the framers fault. that's in direct violation of what they thought would prevent it. they hated war. framers despised it. and they believed the presidents and chief executives were naturally inclined towards war. that's why they made this such a clear standard. now, in myk t about the problems that i see in this proposal and w i think orsehan the c aumf which takes quite an effort. i'll not go through all the details about how new nations

are added the associated forces, shift f anti-to ex post action, all those are flaws that go further from where we were. the ex-anti-ex ex poste is part of the law. so they got rid of the declarations, then if he failed and got rid of the need to specify nations would go at war against. now they are about to get rid of even the requirement to get any type of prior authorization. it will make this body a pedestrian to war. and it will put war making on auto pilot. and this law does not have a sunset provision, itusoes on. d i seehy that's so tempting to have. it certainly relieves members of

this body of the rather uncomfortable questions that do come up. but in my remaining few seconds i'll simply this. under the past circum convention of articlection 8, undid der the former aumfs, we have gone through 17 years of war. you adopt this proposal, we'll have 170 more. because this has virtually no standards. it will effectively revise the constitution of the united states without an amendment. i've had the honor of testifying before this body, also your counterparts in the house many times. but today i took a step that i have not done before, and i've asked two of my sons to come with. i have four children. my sons ayden and jack are behind me. either at draft age or about to be at that age. i felt that the should be here to watch part of this process, because they may well be asked to pay the ultimate price for

the authority that congress may soon bestow upon the president. if called, i think do, and i know they will do their duty as did their gfa andat grafather and other people in my family in previous wars. i don't have any question about them doing their duty. but i do have a question for the members of this institution will do their duty and stand with the expressed language of the constitution, reject this proposed aumf, and show the framers that the faith that they put into this body was well placed. thank you again for the honor appearing before you today. and i would be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you, professor turly. our next witness is christopher anders, depdy detectiveor of the civington legislative office of liberties union. auit detention, torture ar and guantanamo issues, also

written extensively on the topics of the authorizes for use of military force, declarations of war and powe >>hayou. the military civil liberties union would like to express our appreciation for you holding this hearing. no decision by government is graver or moreonse cential with decision to go to war. 2001 the aclu has dedicated ourselves to defending civil liberties and human rights that have been jeopardized by, at best, tenuous claims of the 2001 legal authority. or more chillingly, by presidential claims of art 2 authority in the complete absence of any advan congressional authorization. these harms have included the drone killings of even american citizen, broad surveillance of

american citizens, and detention of american citizen apprehended here in the united states. while it would be impossible for one congress to undo 17 years of negligence, we have a 3 stop process for congress to do the constitution tal authority to decide whether the united states should fb at war. for now, in my oral testimony, i'll focus on the most pressing first step. dr. paul, tapply to congress first pncle o medical care, first do no harm, the top priority for this senate must be to ensure that sjres 59, the corker cain does not become law. it would be hard to overstate the depth and breadth of the dangerous of the human rights that would be caused by the corker cain. the damage would be colossal. not only would it almost see to

the power branch the congress has to article i of the constitution power to war, but would also give the current president all future presidents authority from congress to engage in worldwide war. sending american troops to countries where we are not now at war and against groups that the president alone decides are enemies against groups that don't even exist today. the corker would authorize force without operational limitations against eight groups in six countries. the president could then add to both lists as long as the president reports the expansion to congress. to be clear, the president would have unilateral authority to add additional countries, including the united states itself, to the list of countries congress is authorizing at war. and the president would have unilateral authority to add additional enemies, including groups in the united states itself and even individual

americans under its new authority for the president to designate, quote, persons as enemies. although congress could bar an expansion to additional countries or additional groups, such would actively require two thirds majority of both houses given that the president pr veto legislation that the president himself has ordered. every president for t coming decades would effectively be able to claim for the executive branch much oeer that thit congress and gave to congress exclusively. before closing, i want to point out a sleeper provision with the innocuous title section 10 conforming amendment. this provision greatly expands the em faness 2012 detention provision. in it's single sentence, section 10 sft corker would expand this in differely autrity by

adding this new aumf as basis for the military to capture and inprison individuals without charge or trial. the corker, like the ndaa detention provision itself, has on statutory prohist locking up american citizens or anyone picked up here in the united states itself. while we continue to believe it would still be unlawful for the president to try indefinite detention of american in the united states, again, there is no reason for congress to risk it. when congress continued the ndaa provisionn 20from across the po ideological spectrum w deafening. but narrowing paszed and president obama signed it. and when the president signed it, he made a promise, as part of his ieng statement that he would not use it against american citizens. but that's it. it was a promise.

he never said, and no where did any either president obama or trump say denied that they or future presidents would have the power to do that. the loaded gun was left on the shelf. the corker would make the ndaa prevention detention even greater threat to civil liberties. whilee sha thi with many senators, including senators corker and cain who have expressed their frustration with that is correct the proposed legislation would cause far greater problems than it would solve. the aclu strongly urges all senators to oppose the legislation. thank you, mr. chairman for having this hearing. tnk you, . an ielieve in being kind and welcoming to guests, we'll let our guests go first today and we'lltart with senator sanders. >> senator paul, thank you very

or holding this hearing. let me thank our panelists for their very cogent testimony. article 1, section 8 of the constitution states very clearly, and i quote, congress shall have the power to declare war, end quote. founding father is gave the poo authorize military conflicts to congress for one very simple reason. ngss is the of be government that is most accountable to the people. there is no question but that over the years congress has allowed its authority over this very important issue of war making to ebb. it is time for us to reassert that authority and to start asking some very tough questions about the wars, and i use the word wars, that we are currently in. now, some people may t this

is an interesting abstract discussion we have brilliant constitutional scholars. wonderful intellectual debate. but let me a sure every person hereha the is has horrific consequences for the people of our country and in fact so it to bring this down to earth and a way from abstract i want to give you three examples in recent american history where congress did not ask the right questions, abdicated its responsibility, and the consequences were enormous. ewmericans know that when we deal with iran, very much in the news right now, how many people know that in 1953 the united states, along with the british,overthrew the

demmicly affected government of mohammed, reinstalling authoritarian rule uer the sha shah. in 1979 the shah was over thrown in the iranian revolution bringing to power extremist anti-american government. 13, the united states government, without congressional approval, thought it could simply remove the government of iran in order to protect wealthy oil interests. d at has been the consequences of that over the years? congress abdicated its responsibility. and the second one, more relevant to my generation, was the war in vietnam. in 1964, now iran took place under eisenhower, republican. under 1964, sided an attack on

prevens of escalating u.s. intervention in vietnam. butownow fro own recordings that johnson doubted that story about that attack. johnson's administration misled both congress and the american people into a war that resulted in the loss of over 50,000 american soldiers, andver a million vietnamese. congress was lied to. there was no serious debate about american intnt i that war. third example, more rekrencentl that we all remember was iraq. today it is broadly acknowledged the iraq was a foreign p blder enormous magnitude. in this case the bush administration lied to the american people claiming that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

re that war lt soldiers, displacement of millions of people in the middle east, and bringing us to where we are right now. se is and time again we hav disasters occur when administrations, democrat and republican, mgrnd the american people. and when congress fails to do ats its constitutional job in terms of asking the hard questions whether or not we should be in a war. and i think weeed tohat very hard question today. and here is the point that i hope the american people are asking themselves. is the war on terror a perpetual,ever eing war, necessary to keep us safe?

i personally believe that ve become far too comfortable y ierlle united statesng over the world. after 9/11, congress passed the authorizatioor use of military force, e, ain those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the united states,nd qte. the following yeargrs passed the 2002 aumf against iraq. we have now been in afghanian for 17 years. we have beenraqor yes. we are occupying a portion of syria, and this administration has indicated that it may broaden that mission even more. we are waging a sronewarnt leas. our forces right now, as we ledar i yemen which has killed thousands of civilians and has created the worst

hu planet today. clearly, these outdated and expansive aumfs have been used by three different administrations, republican and democrat, as a blank check for the president to wage war without congressional consent or oversite. meanwhile we are quote unquote fighting terrorism in some countries.withn estimated cost $5.6 trillion and untold lives lost since 2001. i think its very clear, and our panelists i think made the extraordinarily without exception, that the time is long overdue, mr. chairman, for the united states congress to respect the constitution of this country a to stand up for that constitution and to demand that

st u apresident, who determines whether oou men and women are put in harms way. >> thank you.in, mr. chairman. we'll next turn to senator merkley. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman for setting up this hearing. and under what authority do each of you feel that we are currently in syria taking on isis? judge napolitano? >> well, i don't think we are in there by any constitutional authority. because liker colleague senator sanders, i don't believe that any of the aumfs were constitutional because they didn't adequately articulate a target and didn't put in there an end point. but presidents of both parties have used sort of the vague

principles thaty lievere emanating from the aumf to justify the type of inkurcursio you are talking about. >> i see no authority under that or the constitution. unfortunately what is no less than noble lie that come out of the there there has been the specificity as targets which was there for public consumption. this proposed legislation is same technique. gives some specific references while hg provisions that that list can be be expanded almost at will by the president subject to retroactiveost o hoc action by congress. >> do you see any constitutional authority? >> no. and at the time, at the time that the government made the decision, obama administration made the decision to claim that the 2001 aumf was authority to go after isis fighters, senator

paul, chairman paul had legislation in that was declaration of war focused on one year on isis. and that was a constitutional way to take on that fight. i was that they had this very tortured interpretation of the 2001 aumf and applied it to a group that wasctually at war with coral kay coral -- core? al qaeda. >> i ask that because three esteemed experts says we don't have constitutional authoritiment and i want to use that as a way to drasay what happened in 2011. those who harbored 9/11. and since then it has been stretched and expanded to country after country, ti organ.

nk you all agree with that characteristic of 2001 being stretched beyond recognition since it does not provide a current constitutional of cuen conduct filary forces in these countries. so now we are at this point, this point at wch are saying 2001 shouldn't allow to be continued, it's been abused so much, and we have the corker proposed aumf. i have an an impression that when you analyze the details of it and what it authorizes, in multiple nizations, and multiple countries with the president allowed add an additional list, and tt that additional list can be added without preauthorization by congress, that it essentially codifies the expansion, the stretching of the 2001, aumf. is that a fair way t

it? >> yes. it's a loaded gun. >> ok. ye >> at minimum, yes. >> so senator corker, who i deeply respect for having wrestled with the 2001, and senator cain have tried to figure out how to replace 2001. they have come up with this proposal, which disturbing me for the reasons that you all have been sharing. but senator corker fairly said, so, if you all don't like this, what would you do? and mr. anderou mentioned i think your closing comment was you encourage members to consider presenting what could all be done as an alternative. so i presented such an alternative. i don't know if each of you is familiar with it. but one of the things it does is have a sunset in it so itd lick would require us as the senate and house to re-examine the foundation and the considerations.

do each of you think a sunset is an important provision in aumf so we don't have unending war without reconsideration or authorization by congress? >> well, a sunset, senator merkley is certainly helpful because it compels the congress that representatives of the people periodic will i to review what the president is doing in their name. my own view would be legislation which simply says the president shall not use military force. litary or civilian. beuse presidents use intelligence forces and there by by pass the war powers resolution. >> my time is going to comout. >> i didn't mean to -- except in accordance with the constitution. ha seen what i put together to try to very tightly constrain just two countries and three fou forces and put two year sunset

and to require preauthorization so we have the constitutional vision of that aumf. any insights whether that puts us more clearly on the track envisioned in our constitution? >> we are very pleased with how you put together your aumf. we don't take a position. the aclu has never taken a position whether the united states should it be at war against a particular country or particular group. but in terms of how it fits with the constitution separation of powers, the aumf you put together fits very well. it's up to congress then to make that decision on do we want to be as a country be at war with these particular groups and these particular countries. but in terms of kind of fitting in a constitutional framework, yes, it does. >> i just want to note that several of you pointed out that members of congress are uncomfortable with having to make these tough decisions. and so it's easy to take what

was invested in congress and simply deliver it to the executive a let them take the heat. i find that unacceptable. ntusion, this proposed versn in which the president can go at forces in any countries, new organizations, deciding on his or her own whether or not it meets the test in the aum congress wouldavto come around after our forces are deployed and get a super majority of both chambers to close the door. something that nobody thinks congress would ever do. so in sum we end up with a wholesale transfer of our responsibilities carefully crafted. it's tough for us to make these utt's our sponbility it's why we need cr replacement aumf that honors that vision of the constitution and makes us have the tough debates and tough votes.

thank you. >> s u dom. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and really appreciate your calling this heang and having these three experts before us here. mr. anders, i a ing questionry eo over at formulations committee and wanted to get your perspective on this. urks dall the thehief of staff of the military, milli, appropriations character of the war. the traditional idea is war at its base is extension of politics. war forces our will on the opponent t milar mns to reach a political objective. taking expansive what congress did on 9/ol objective is to stop trorism at a broad level. however, a more restrictive view, and the view that was sold

to the congress when i voted in fa/11 aumf was that we aim to punish and deter the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks specifically al qaeda and the taliba whiew do you believe is the correct, mr. anders? >> that's easy. i think it's the narrower view. and i think congress at that time worked hard to come up with specific language. and there was a back and forth, you know, that'sn reported on quite a bit, reported at the yhe white house and drafters in congress on coming up with that language. and the part tt is frustrating, i think for all of us now, is when we talk about new aumf talking about the need for naming the enemy and objectives. it's hard to see how the 2001 aumf could have been made more specific than it was in terms of naming what the objective was

and who it was that the united states was going to war against than what it was. the only short coming in it was give that the united states at that time didn't know the exact names of who it was we war with. it didn't include the exact names. but other than that i think it's pretty clear it was for core al qaeda because of their role in the 9/11 attacks and their role in harboring them, period. >> one of the restraints on war was recently it put in a commentary by dr. sara krebs over at he's author of a new book called "taxing wars, the american way of war finance and decline of democracy" and she ve attacks on war, you are you voeverne, evneunderstands that

a whole is backing this war. and so in the distant past we paid for wars with war taxes. more recently members of congress have wanted to do this to raise the awareness of war an sacrifi small percentage of americans who fight in these wars. what do you think of a war tax, other than i know digging this deeper into debt? >> i do think the bigger point of having the country have a greater investment and greater knowledge of what the costs of war are, one of the problems that we've had with the lower cost of war in terms of american lives and american treasure is with the use of drones and new technology is that lot of the more obvious costs of war are

not as a parent. so focusing ion what the financial costs are would probably be very helpful way for people to have a better understanding of the full extent of whats actually means. >> and i think you wld end up having a debate about whether or not to commit ourselves to these many of these very dangerous situations. along that same line, some people when i go home and do town haul meetings and hear from my constituents, some have asked why are we not seeing people in the s ltse vietnamnd anti-war activity like on campuses and the answer i always get is there is no draft. should we relook at this? you consider a draft a check on foreign wars? >> in the past, certainly i've been at the aclu 20 years predates my time there, but i know we've had a lot of concerns historically about a draft in terms of its impact on civil

liberties and also in terms of equality and w is subject to it. so that's not a proposal that we are supporting. >> the office of legal couns recently released legal justification for the strikes in syria. the memo ss that the president identifiedhr interests in support of th april 2018 syria strikes. one was the promotional regiol stability. two the prevention of a worsening of the region's humanitarian coff humanitari humanitarian ka tra catastrophe. and tee is the use of chemical

weapons. i find that opinion extremely alarming. do you agree with the justice allowed under that authority alone? >> based on the claims of 2001 aumf, that opinion the may 31, 2011 strikes on syrian targets and the april 1st, 2011 opinion during t obama administration from legal counsel on the air campaign against libya are chling. they both are essentially the president claiming for himself the war authority that the constitution gave to congression congress alone. and they are very expensive claims. and i think we thought the libya was aggressive and expansive as one could be. we with thenenyr. topped last

and i do think it's a challenge for the senate to figure out how to use the legislative process to pair that back, to invalidate those opinions, and those relying on them, but ultimately that's probably going to require also using the power of the purse cutting off funds for unauthorized military campaigns. >> chairman paul, thank you so much for this hearing. >> senator lee. >> i want to thank you senator paul for organizing hand thank particular for you willing to come and offer urine sites. which is helpful. we are now this 17th year in deploy testament under the 2001 use of authorize force. it is not yet the case that most junior personnel deployed were not born as of the moment that 2001 aumf was issued by congress. but it will soon be the case. lo bore it's even fathomable that we will have retreated from

the battles fields, it will be the case thisasss ey wer born. in the meantime, we have some issuesdeal we have spe $2.8 trillion in these effort under the '01 and '02 aumf. and not a lot of accountability when congress looks the other way or tolerate ongoing efforts, ongoing deployment consistent wi the '01 or '02 aumf without having additional conversations what we are doing on why u.s. blood and treasure should be put on the line. so instead of the people's elected representative discussing these in realtime, these issues have been left to the will and whim of small handful of political elites in washington d.c. this is scary. and it's contrary to the text and the structure and history

andradition underlying our constitution. so it's one of the reasons why i welcome this hearing. and why i think we need to have this discussion. so i have a few questions. we'll start with you, mr. anders. earlier this year, you probably are aware, members of congress received a letter from th department of defense relying on a 1975 argument suggesting that the only time congress has a role in authorizing u.s. forces to be deployed is when deployed units of u.s. forces are on the ground engaged in a kinetic exan. do you agree with that? and if not why. >> no, we don't agree with that first of all, it's parole of congress to provide, exclusive authority to provide authorization in advance before a military engagementn the absence of a need to repel a an that's the constitutional

standard. >> it's not often wars today anyway. waare that we engage in tod that doesn't necessarily involve an kinetic exchange between people on the ground. >> that'sht and i think this, again, is something that began during the obama administration, this definition of what hostilities mean under the war powers legislation. and what the position tha t president am eventually took was hostilities did not incde air power and the absence of ground troops. that of course means that lots of places, as you just referenced, where the united states is at war are not considered hostilities. and so, tre the war powers resolution, which does include deadlines for with drawing in the absence of

congressional authorization, don't apply. so with that opinion from harold ko, the state adviser to president obama, the executive branch pretty much wrote out of existence a good part of the war powers legislation. >> which is a concern to many of us here and should be more so t. professor actually, as you know it was well understood at the me of the founding and was made an understanding based on how the constitutional was written, that the president unlike the king, would not have unilateral power to go to war. in fact, hamilton makes this point in federalist 69. so when he talk about this deploying military personnel, what source are they claiming that authority exists? >> there is no source. the interesting thing about this provision article i,ecti 8,

it was viewed at the time as defining work of the convention. joed togr who are normally not in agreement and said this is how we can address this. they all agreed that the didn't want a situation like thene we have today where a president has this type of unila authority. and they believed they had fixed the problem. because article i, section 8 could not be more clear. and to fold this back to the question that you asked my coeae, the definition that presint before of this kinetic conflict was used in litigation ta led on behalf of democrat and republican members. so the obama administration came forward when we were challenging libyan war as war, and came into court and said you know what it's not a war by our definition. and when we had that argument, they went further than that. they said the president alone defines what war is.

now, we presented that to the court and said does that track with you? do you honestly think that the framers put this specific of an obligation, spent this amount of time, and it all comes down to a noun that the president is simply allowed to define? by the end of the litigation, by the way i had no better what kinetic means in wartime than i did before, but what i did understand. >> means you are hitting stuff, i think. >> i guess so. but it got to that point of absurdity. and this is all effort to avoid clarity. you try to cha noun, if . u can't deal with the >> to avoid clarity, i think these a good description, to avoid clarity in a place where morality, decency and justice would seem to demand clarity a where the constitution does that.

judge napolitano, i want to talk to you about this. they have used this as justification for a number of military operations. but when i read the text of the 2001 authorizaon forhe use of military force, it seems somewhat clear to me that it covers fairly narrow scope of targets to include, quote, those nations, organizations, or persons that he, he being the president determines, authorized or aided terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons. can you explain to me the limits of this aumf? meaning what gros or geographic regions u.s. could legitimately go into under this authority? >> well, senator lee, i have argued that the aumf both of them are unconstitutional because they failed to include an end point. and that's the reason we are having this hearing today. because presidents have used these to go wherever they wanted to go.

george orwe predicted this when he said words will determine victory. if the president can define war rather than congress, he or she will define it in a way to facilitate his or her use of it. at one point the obama administration argued that the use of intelligence forces on thedho wen wearing uniforms with insignia on them is knots the same as mily forces on the ground chblt well, they looked a little different of offensive weaponry with which to kill people that hadn't been authorized by the congress. so the use of the phrase associated forces and permit tg the commander in chief to demands what those mean t use this phrase earlier with senator merkley, is like justice jackson said descenting, a loaded gun in

a desk drawer of the president ready for him to take it out and shoot it whenever he wants. >> well said. i see my time is expired. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator peters. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you gentlemen for your stony here today and certnln inte discussion. but i wanted to take my time and discuss something that's actually happening right today and get your sense of what you are seeing and your thoughts. today the senate, as you know, is starting debate on thenaonal act for 2019. and the bill that was before us includes a provision that will allow the secretary of energy to pursue development of a low yield nuclear weapon without first receiving specific authorization from congress. i voted against this provision as a member of the armed services committee. and literally strikes from current law requirement that a new lowield nar weapon be, quote, specifically by co. d it replaces it wit a

provision that will allow secrar t energy to decide on his own whether or not to go forward. the provision that struck was a limitation that congress put in place about 15 years ago to ensure the legislative and thti bnc w such a highly consequence shall decision. i would argue if members of congress think that arsenal nuclear weapon we should debate it and authorize it and do it in full view of the american people as existing law requires. instead, some are trying to change the rules without congressional approval. i think that's fairly clear. so for the panel what are your thoughts? and is this appropriate delegation of congressional responsibility? >> in my view, senator peters it is not. i would have commended you and do commend you for your vote and for your understanding. the point i tried t make in my initial comments was it is often the subtle and unseen passage of

power from the congress to the president tt comes back to wreck the most havoc. i was unaware until you discussed this two minutes ago this is being debated by the senate today. this is profoundly hideous and utterly unconstitutional that bureaucrats in the executive branch would have power that madison and company expressly gave only to the congress. >> any others? >> oh, i would simply add that i do find it very problematic in terms of using the appropriations process as a substitute for anzaonand a full. you havemer hse pages here. we won't tell you t years we served. at i was about to mention, when i was house leadership page, we had the debate over the knew tran bomb whether to allow

the neutron bomb to be developed or whether it was a new type of weapon that woulde nuclear war more feasible and therefore more likely. i stood there on the house floor listening to that long debate that went into the earliest hours. s o my life.f the mostfounperi and i came away with a deep respect for members on both sides that spoke honestly, directly about the consequences and the issues behind that type of weapon. and i remember thinking as a young page that this is a pretty great place when we debate whether we should do something, not whether we could do something, and what implications what does it have not just for us but for the word. that's a debate you should always want. the other point i would mention in my testimony i talk about the probe are having, not just with the failure of congress to carry die under article sec,on 8, but collateral failure to deal with

its obligations under the appropriations powers. when we litigated against the libyan war, one thing a lot of pe dn' realis that war wasplel paid out of loose change. congress never appropriated money foribyan war. we had entire war that was paid for because congress giveso much money to the defense department they tk actually have a war b o theoney you give thend don't comto so the failure is on both sides of this issue. >> all right. i appreciate sators, to ask you to answernt queson. but picking up from this debate on nuclear weapons and the consequential nature of them and why congressional input and debate is, in my mind,tial and seems both of our previous witnesses would aeeit i spint a great deal of time thinking about the future of warfare, with i was going to change in absolutely dramatic i'm intely involved in self driving cars and autonomy and

things happening in that s and driven by artificial intelligence, machine learning. we areo have face warfare will be radically changed in the next five to ten years. i think it raises some profound issues certainly the morality and ethics but also significant policy issues and perhaps a view of what congress's involvement techn changing the fact that rapidly and our adversaries may not be bound by the same type of restraints we have here. wt to get your thoughts. what should we be thinking about in terms of war powers given the fact that technology will be changing dramatically and inays bit about that earlier, mr. anders i would like to have your thoughts. >> yeah, i think this is one place where the need for specificity, need for controls and limitations put in at the get-go iseally important.

anihink there are places where there are instances where there are members of the foreign relations committee that have come up with various amendments itarious thingsn ont of limiting operationally what can be done in different theaters of but i think kind of even more fundamentally, limiting the geography, liting whohe enemy is are particularly important. and i think kind of going a little bit back to the question about the provisionod, i think if congress hasn't learned anything over the past couple decades, other than tha when it's a one way ratchet wrench with turning ain executive

branch, if you provide discretion to the executive branch, you are not getting it ck. and so the starting point for an authorization for use of military force or declaration of war or any kind of neweaponry ghe cons imposed by congress. and if later on those controls need to be loosened, then loosen them. but the greater and the tighter control you put on from the start, the more ly iis that congress is gng to retain that authority. >> amount of time. but if any one has a thought i would entertain that. agreedly >> thank you. >> thank you, senator peters. it was mentioned earlier that our soldiers within the next yearill actually have been born after 9/11 and have no memory of it. 've been at war that long. even many of the audience here today is young enough they may not remember 9/11.

and it's not to say it wasn't something profound and we needed to respond, but we are still at war and i think we have lost our mission. i ask secretary pompeo when he was before us is there a military splugs to afghanistan? and he frankly said no. and he is one that still wants to stay. and my question is if there is military solution, w more troo. i'm reading coal book about pakistan and afghanistan, and in that book they admitted there was no military solution. diussion unaniusly everyone agreed there was no military solution in 2010. so we have to wake up and do stg. that's part of what this hearing is about. but it's also about the constitutionality of authorization to use force. a declaration of war. and so i tnk that it's important that we review these again. i think there are one possibly two reasons this is unconstitutional and we'll start there.

one thing is delegates constitutional authority to congress to the president. why don't we start with judge napolitano and professor turley anday how is that unconstitutional? is there a possibility that we can go to court? is there evidence that we've ever had a delegation doctrine overturned where congress delegated some authority they weren't allowed to do? judge napolitano first. >> well, professor turley is country's experts getting things in court that looks impossible. because it looks like no standing but he finds so i'll let him address that. but the supreme court has held countless times just because the branch of government that is losing the power consents to that loss does not make it constitutional. because the separation of powers doctrine was not written to preserve the hedgemony of the

three branches. madison even said jealous of each other. the problem of course is getting the courts to examine this. there have been some examinations, but they are few and far between. professor turley is an expert in that because most of the time the court will say particularly with respect to war, i'm not talking about congress saying to the fda you can make all the regulations you want about toothpaste, we are talking about with respect to war, the courts are more likely than not to say that is a political question. if you don't like the war, elect a new president or elect a congress that's more faithful to its oath to uphold the coonnstitu but just becse that power passes from legislative to executive with the consent of both doesot make it constitutional. in fact, the core authorities of each branch may not be exchanged,ixed, or commingled if the court is clear on s.

anything it's clear on that. profeor turley. >> thank you very much. there is this strange anomaly which is largely a thing of the judiciary that exist today. if people believe in civics unconstitutional courts have chance to review it. tt checks and balances work because no one can act alone. unfortunately, that's not true. developed narrowing standing doctrines i've long been a critic of. you can have glaring unconstitutional acts where the court will not recognize anyone as having a right to raise them. so, for example, in the libyan war case, i came forward with both democrat and republican members who said, look, we take an oath, and that oath pholto theonstition which includes an obligation, sacred one to declare war. we were denied that right. and so we standing. >> is the standingssue a problem at every level, district

court, appellate court and supreme court? >> it is. and the court says it is. then when i pressed the court they said we have here an immac la late violation of the constitution. no one could stop it. even though constitution thought they sought to avoid. when i went back to the court when i represented the house of representatives as a body, there was a fierce level of litigation but we won that standing battle. and the court accepted that as a representative of one of the houses, my clients would havean. really believe that -- >> go beyond the district court? >> it went to the court of appeals and eventually ultimately proved moot because of the changes. >> didn't loose on standing? >> we did not. we won on standing and that thankfully is still there. but i believe legislative standing would solve a lot of this problem. if members of congress were recognized as having skin in the

game. >> but it sounds like it's overwhelming within the federal court structure that both precedent and opinion is that -- i mean it won't change unless majority of supreme court to set new way on new way on standing. >> that'not impossible. >> in fact, that's a creation of the courts and can be undone by the courts but it's not working. >> in half. on versus the u.s. they set for the like a lot of things the supreme court does, says you're not supposed to do it. well, can you do it if it's intelligible or reasonable, and we get all these extra doctrines added in which i think dilute what you weren't supposed to do once upon a time according to e constitution. in that they said you can't delegate your war-making authority but you can give up some of it if you have an intelligible principle on which to act. has there been further decisions in that -- in that vain? is that sort of a last standing precedent as far as this goes with war powers? are there other crt cases that we can look to that are

instructive in this? first profeorury and then ju napitano. are reasons to be hopeful in the war powers are buor gerally in terms of the separation of war powers. i ohadortunity testi in the gorsuch hearing and one of the things i h n is he had a refreshing understanding of the separation ors, and se people view him as a tux actualist in tt sense. we rlly can change the center of gravity here and move it bac because right now we have a dangerous instility, and so far n say th given y,'llsa it hear. manav wrong. wasven wro mrs of this institution when he sai ambition would fight amon belied yould all be jealous over your inherited stitution has really shatteredwt that assumption. >> certainly there's ambition. it's just misplaced.

>> maybeison meantcourage, because the congress has really lacked the courage. those ofay the coagto say to the executive youe toto most fqutl cited, at least until recently justice in american history, benjamin cardoza said where there's ag s tresintares wnd there is nobody who can get into court to challenge him so profis living pro of that, though he's had some uniqueuccees. congress has t right the legislation whether it's standi engage i any act of violence whether by people in uniform or xcept i with article i. >> and it's easy for us to deflect and say, oh, w ur allow silli and the court should fix this when in reality we probably need essi use our ambition to take our power bon thenf consti

alts, we've given uphe authityonstitutional principle that goes to us. there's something that can only eny aositiv avete of a to somet that can only be stopped by a two-thirds vote of disapproval. t n'spny to atoook as l on spe. money unless a majority of us give him the money to spend. that's the way it as to mari would le to t president you can spe alle mone can stop you from spending the money would be by atwthirds te. tas possi world would think questis constitutional, but i guess my is that separate -- would that be a separate constio isea of delegation of authority, because what wct doing is switching something. weehing- the hass ti ne b a majority vote affirmatively a thest everything istive a things are super majorities so are we not just changing the

constitution? it's unconstitutional because of the changes. rilyelegion but actually a c in the mechanism is the way the constitution works. professor ey ce. the constitution is quite cle.y congress to go to war. person you're we we alla understand will never occur. it's going to be very hard to oris group o nation off o that list, ando isoi to be virtually impossible too th, but i d eoesn'tn matter how you feel about tisti or the likelihood. it is in decadtion o the constitution, and it's a bizarre notion, as you in, lonsad osk fo the credit card, just give me your credit card and you c op you see expenses get too high. isn'thaha happens? >> i think -- i think we would look and go, that wn' really b s ide what's w a all this is

that the framers wereright, that erythinhae're talking about right now proves that they were right, that they abo right about war. wer prriations. they really did know about human nare tt sens look, the imposition of the super majority is profoundly unconstitutional. the question is getting a court to declare it as such which is nearly as such. >> or us grabbing it back. >> i have another question toee senor peters had any last -- the last question i wanted to bring up was something mr. anders brought up, and i think it's an important point that i hadn't thought of until i read his statement is that, one, it's a real problem that associated force right-hand side esident wefe wha they are in the future and that we thir te, but it's also an interesting question that you bring up that associated fors areot defined foreign ensessarily. it could be a domestic group that you don't liketld e associate forced, and you could see how, you know,

this could be a variety. i mean, you really canmaf which be domestic groups or say our associated forced and you pnt is that the indefinite dettiof sould zed through the previous ene to vast groups of america. could you make thattls re--expl mean by in a. his is as with -- with the corker cane, a problem with the mdaa and problem with the mdaa detention provisions, a problemt the senate by vote refused to fix despite the votes oeo tting on the dais who voted to -- to protect ame citizens there. but there is no prohibition in the corker cane amf from

american citizens, an american individual from being in an cld decid on his or her own is an enemy of the united states. similarly, there's no prohibition in the corrain amuf from designating the united states as a place where military force can be used. now, you know, we take it for granted because o boss come tattus which is probably limited than the kind of legend around it makes it seen. >> posse come tattus limits federal officers or the army from operating domestically. >> that's right. for domestic purposes. >> the question would be who is the army and intelligence offi or homeland security police. are they the army or are they limitedy posse comitatus.

>> in this instance there's at says the ud orker cain amuf cannot basically become a battlefield and this is something that came up during the debate around the detention provisions in 2011 with senator graham going to the senate floor saying that -- saying that the united states can be a battlefield. so this is a real problem, and there have been united states citizens that have been droned, droned accidentally, droned on purpose. as you know, mr. chairman, there have been united states citizens thnionat havut in indefinite military detention, so, you know, these are not thee rhett call approximate. you know, this is -- this is one aspect, of cour,f far bigger ith corker cain amuf, but thiisne that i think that especiay -- especially as we noticed that it was kind of tucked in there with

this, you know, this innocuous name, just saying that these provisions of the ndaa are getting amended by adding namethe new amuf into it. it's a broad new authority that would be handed over to the military. >> i know judge napolitano has a plane. esce but know senator let sanders had a few morein andet i'll you know if you can stay or you can go. >> very briefly. i apologize but i had a pre-scheduledeeting to be in, and thank you very much for your excellent testimony. let me ask you this question and you may well have gone over it when i wasn't in the room. wh w talk about giving the president today virtually complete authority. ife read in e paper that the president decided to bomb mood would plink an eye. you talk about the presidential

impact of allowings presidents to do this. what does that mean above and beyond wars,bod abrogating the constitution the united states? what does it mean to our quality of life in this country? >> oh, i think it's the fact that we're having this kind of a conversation about whether the president could kill americans in america or whether the president c engage in perpetual war, no matter how noble he thinks that war is speaks volumes about how low we have sunk with respect to culture, mortgage and fidelity to principles in the constitution, senator sanders. >> okay. >> i think there's a twofold problem here. one is that, you kno benjami franklin, as you i'm sure recall at the convention was asked by mrs. poul what it was that you have wrought, what have you created? >> is that really true? did he really say that?t

ha don't want to the check. >> only jonathan believes that actually happened. >> and he said it's a republic if you can keep it. and that is the problem with being in perpetual war. my boys he never bea country have been in a country that's not at war. both of them have never spent a day of their lives when we're not at war and it becomes a natural state. the example of that have is one of the most chilly things i saw in myliti is wn eri holder went to my alma mater law school to announce the kill policy of the obama administration, said that the administration was now asserting the right to killn american citizen on the president's sole authority without charge, without conviction and that he believed he had that authority that was inherent inle ii and instead of having any objections, a roomful of leading law professors and judges applauded, applauded an attorney general saying the president has the inherent right to kill any

of you, and the reason this becomes dangerous is take a look at the olc opinions that we lked about recently. in the olc opinion they argued sident had unilateral authority to go to war without the approvalf ngress because of, quote, the historic gloss of past wars. so what happened is that this body, because it has acquiesced for so long, that is now being used as an interpretive tool. >> that's the precedent that they are using. >> yes. >> senator sanders, i was really struck by something you said earlier which was to tab kind of what this is like -- what this is all about in reality. >> right. >> as opposed to theory, and i do think that one of the dynamics around this discussion about putting together new amuf is this has bec a lawyers game among law. it's like one logic ga and -- and, you know, it's telling here, although, you know, i don't want to be off this panel, right, but three lawyers here on this panel, the

one -- the one, literally one hearing in front of the senate earlier versions of this e wase which, you know, came out of some of the law fare blog writers and thinkers there, there were panels both in the house and the senate earlier. they were all lawyers on those, right? and a lot of it just gets tossed around as well, we haven't ton this in 17 years, so how do we like arrange the words on the page, right? >> right. >> you know, one of the things that we've been trying to bring home to people in talking about the corker kainl amuf is, you know, without even goingw tne groups, you know. look, it has al shabaab and somalia, right? i have a 16-year-old, too, all right. do i want my 16-year-old going to war against al shabaab in somalia? my son probably can't find

soma a map and pba kn w al ab right? room but this basically would be congress. that's not even like what the president comes up. >> right. >> this would be congress saying the united states can go to war against al shabaab in somalia. that doesn't mean just sending a drone there, here and there, right? that means if we -- if the president wants to send 200,000 troops there and go in all out house-to-house fighting as we did in afghanistan and iraq we could do that. >> all right. my time is expired. senator paul, thank you very much for calling this hearing. i thought i missed some of it but what i heard was really important and i want to thank all three of you for your efforts. thanks for being here and thanks for all you're doing. >> to put a human face on this, you might ask the families of the four soldiers who died mali chasing a herdsman. should we have discussed whether we needed to chase that herdsman, what that herdsman's

threat to our national security was, what kind of war is going on in mali. had no hearings on a war in mali. in fact, a prominent member of the armed services committee in the senate said mali, i didn't know we had a thousand soldiers there. that's very worrisome that the people who are supposed to be informed andebheer rons and dau debating it a all. we've completed abdicated it, and there is a bipartisan group of us who would like to grab that back, but i can tell you we're in the minority, and we'll finish with this last question. the majority of the senate, and i think senator sanders would agree with me, actually do believe in unlimited article ii authority on both sides of the aisle, maybe more so on my aisle, but even some on the other side do believe that there is unlimited article ii authority. in fact, they say that -- i've heard this said many times, that the only check we have is the power of the purse, and i said, well, that's one check, but that's not the initial -- we have a check on initiation of war and then on the continuation

through spending, it'suay impos fund when a war is over there because people say, well, you're not going to funneled, you know, our young men and women. you're not going to give them the arms to defend themselves, how can you do this and even vietnam, which was so incredibly unpopular, funding -- i think ther wallyote i committee, i think senator leahy was there and tells the story about being there and voting, but it was like '74 i think or '75 almost by the time we had the courage in one committee to vote to stop funding. so i guess my question though is there any historical evidence that our founders believed in unlimited article ii authority or that the declaration of war was just this -- is just now an anachronism that our founding fathers did not find to be important? we'll start with judge litanond work our way down. >> shortth short answer there. what is no evidence that the founding authorities believed in unlimited article ii authority and ere'sn abundance of evidence that professor turley

characterized in his opening statement that they did not. >> yeah. in are plenty of systems that give that type of authority. just doesn't happen to be ours. the framers were quite clear to the contrary. they couldn't -- this is one of the few areas where there wasn't much of a debate. one case there was aine person who was sugsting this view, that a president should have this authority, and he didn't get a second on his motion. and so i would -- my preference is that if you want to gut t don blame the framers and don't pretend that it's in compliance with the constitution. >> so madison's gotten a lot of attention today so just to put out thomas jefferson and give him a little air time. >> this is where i o your mike. >> he wrote allocation of war powers to congress provides an effectual check to it the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose from the executive to the legislative body.

hi ts has been a great hearing. thanks, everybody, for coming, and if we're still at war 17 years from now, if cain/corker passes fland are no limits on war let it be known there were at least some of us who warned. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> have a good flight.

tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2, the memorial service marking the 50th anniversary of the assassination of robert f. kennedy from arlington national cemetery. featured speakers include family, fries, members of congress and former president bill clinton. watch the rfk 0th memorial servic 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2, c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. next, hear senator elizabeth warren deliver a keynote address about the effects of the trump administration's federal deregulation during an event hosted by the coalition sensible safeguards. her remarks are 0 minutes

>>. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank thank you. it's good to be here with everybody this morning. so thank you. thank you to rob. oalition for sensible tizen and safeguards for organizing this symposium. are you leading a lot of tough fights on behalf of the america this opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with you. thank you for your work. it's important work. [ applause ] let's talk about toasters. back when i was a young mom i e 1970s, i liked to make tst for breakfast, and one morningp into