radio app. >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years c-span has been providing america coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country. created by cable in 1979 c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> professor sarah binder back for a discussion about war powers and congress. professor, president trump said sunday that his tweets should serve as sufficient notice to congress of a possible military strike on iran. where does that obligation come from? >> well, the president is roughly referring to -- very

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 haven't been attacked, if he does that, he needs to follow the law which says notify congress. tell them what you're doing. justify it. what's the legal authorization and what's next? how long will they be there and so forth? that's what the president claimed to be doing which is to say i notify you we're on which doesn't 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 presidents either comply with the war powers resolution or act as if they're complying, usually it's 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. that's the context in which congress tries to reassert itself. they reassert on budget, on war powers. it's an effort to try to find what's 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? >> that's what from today's 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 presidents might need to commit troops in harm's way abroad. they're laying out various ways that might be justified. eminent attack, actual attack, self-defense. there's the sense from congress they're not going to interfere with the president's committing if it's like pearl harbor.

they're saying if you're going to commit troops, you need authorization from congress. >> what's 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. presidents have committed troops hundreds of times. short of a declaration of war, world war i and world war ii, in episodes where presidents 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 open-ended authorization to wage war so congress doesn't 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. she's 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. >> i'll 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 there's 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. it's 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, post-traumatic 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 harm's way. >> senator tim kaine on the floor of the senate yesterday. what can democrats do and what can't 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 he's suggesting they do is under the war powers resolution each chamber consider a joint resolution of disapproval. in essence that would tell the president you've 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. it's protected under the law. it gives some sort of speed ramp on to the senate floor. the republicans can't 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 don't 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. let's 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 there's a total lack of grace. i think the polarization -- i don't 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. >> that's a great question. it's a great question because it's complicated. presidents 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. there's no easy answer here. it's the case that the president's partisans and supporters of the administration often want to do their best to insulate presidents and say the war powers resolution doesn't apply in certain circumstances. that gets into the legalese. luckily for me i'm not trained to go into that. these are political questions for the rest of us. they're tough ones. they're 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.

he's 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. that's my comments. thank you. have a wonderful day. >> do you see parallels to the cuban missile crisis? >> well, i would be hard-pressed to draw all these lines and to weave those altogether. keep in mind that in these periods of polarization we're 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, it's 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. we're talking war powers with sarah binder, a political science professor at george washington university. we're 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, now's a good time to call in. this is linda out of ohio, a republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning, john. sarah, i'm confused on a few things. i understand you have to have a congress if you're 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 can't the president have the right to do that? he don't have time to ask congress. can you explain that to me, sarah? thank you very much. you're doing a good job of what

you're explaining. thank you very much. >> excellent. that's 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. he's supposed to consult prior. there's supposed to be advanced warning. what the law wants is within 48 hours to be told what's the justification, why is this happening and how long will it last roughly speaking. there's recognition in the law that presidents as commanders in chief can't have their hands tied behind their backs, but the law aims to bring congress into those decisions about whether it's 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. they've elected expressing a view that many lawmakers in the abstract probably agree with which is we don't 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 don't we rewrite that reauthorization? you heard senator kaine on the floor yesterday saying that. it's 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 don't think there's much disagreement within congress. but these are momentous decisions, and presidents 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 don't want their fingerprints on tough decisions if things go wrong. they think it's 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 harm's 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 presidents 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. it's 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 we're trying to take him out, we're going through the process in congress, and iran, if you're listening, i hope you can find the courage to do us a favor though. you'll be richly rewarded by the press. how's 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? we've 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 wouldn't 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 haven't 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 we're watching and monitoring them. we hope and we've sent a message that that will not be well received. the president's been very clear in his message, and we hope that they're 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. that's 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 doesn't 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. he's 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 he's obliterated. beyond that, sarah, your assessment, i don't think iran is capable of waging war against america, and i think they understand power and respect power. that's the way it is in the middle east. >> well, you've 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 presidents in both parties have the had the opportunity to eliminate soleimani, the question is why didn't they and why is it different with this president? >> you can call in 202-748-8000, republicans, 202-748-8001, independents, 202-748-8002. 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 senate's 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 can't hold a trial of impeaching the president if it does not have the articles of impeachment from the house, right? that's not spelled out in the constitution, and it's not spelled out in the senate's rules except indirectly. but there is no impeachment case if the house doesn't send them over. and so senator hawley wants to find a way to get around that so that they can dismiss the articles and acquit the president. but that would require basically -- even if it happened, they would have to make it up, right? they would have to create a rule that allowed them to have a

trial. because under the senate's impeachment trial rules, that trial begins -- its provoked, it's precipitated -- when the articles and managers walk over into the chamber. so, in the absence of that move, the senate trial impeachment rules don't apply. there is no trial. and so republicans, i think, are struggling here. i don't think very many people anticipated -- i did not anticipate for sure -- that the speaker would hold on to the articles and use them to try to have some leverage over the shape of that senate trial. and that's what i think is going on here when you see discussions of senate republicans trying to change the rules in some way that would allow them to have a trial. but without the articles, it doesn't seem to me that there is actually capacity to have a trial. >> do you have any thoughts on what a fair trial looks like and the idea of using the same rules set up for the clinton impeachment for a trump impeachment?

is that fair? >> so, these are -- fairness is at the eye of the beholder. the beholder sometimes wears red clothes and sometimes wears blue clothes. one argument, why don't they use the rules negotiated for the clinton trial. >> this is what mitch mcconnell was arguing on the floor of the senate yesterday. >> this is when a democrat might respond to that, well, that was a republican senate which had an interest in prosecuting a trial, impeachment trial, against a democratic president. but this context is politically different for the current republican majority because it's a president of their own party and their interest this time is in dismissing the trial quickly without witnesses. so, the initial agreement they reached in 1999 in a bipartisan basis was we'll have certain amount of time for the trials

and witnesses and the trials and two sides and so forth and there will be a motion to dismiss and we will consider motions on witnesses. so, the republicans in 1999, with democratic support, set it up to say there is going to some consideration of witnesses. so, is that fair is fair? are republicans willing to do that this time? it's not entirely clear, especially with yesterday's news that john bolton wants to testify or is willing to testify. it's not entirely clear where republicans are on witnesses. so, what's fair? politicians decide what's fair, and it doesn't often resemble anything that you and i outside the chamber think of this as fair. >> plenty of callers waiting to chat with you. sam is in washington, d.c., an independent. good morning. >> caller: good morning to you and good morning to your guest. one point your guest just brought up is justification. as we know in the past our country has used false

justification, and to me, this manufactured crisis seems that is a deflection from the impeachment because the reality is the fact that soleimani was a force for good and he is the one -- he decimate the isis. right now i think al-baghdadi is laughing in his grave for us to get rid of him because all you would see right now, you see the black flag all over the middle east. he was the one, he stands for the christians in iraq and syria. so, the phony media, the fox, and the rest of it, they are -- they are refusing to tell us the

truth about this guy. >> that's sam here in washington, d.c. echoing some of what we heard from iran's foreign minister immediately after the killing was reported, the foreign minister pointing out his efforts against isis, al quaeda, and others. >> well, i think the issue here in part is what are going to be the consequences here, and does it desolve the coalition which has been fighting isis. and it points to this question about why previous administrations who had the opportunities to go after soleimani but did not in part for some of the reasons that the caller raises which is that some -- in some ways, u.s. interests for advanced by having soleimani in place and helping to fight a common enemy of isis. and it's complicated.

and non-iranian experts, i myself included, it's hard to understand really what's -- this is not black and white. and it's hard to know what the right path is for the administration. but i think that's why critics have said what are you going to do now and have you thought about all these potential ramifications? >> st. petersburg, florida. vicky, democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank god for c-span. i want you to know that number one. it's amazing -- and the reason that i called is because a caller called on the democratic line and said that this president was going rogue. and i'm a democrat, and i support the president. and there are a lot of democrats out there just like me that are frustrated with our party and support our president on doing the excellent job he's doing for our country as far as our economy, jobs, and so forth.

i really appreciate this program because it does give every caller across the nation the call in and view their part. but i just want the callers to also know out there, there are plenty of democrats that support this president. and the political thing -- it shouldn't go into politics anymore. it should be representing our country and what's the best interest. and how do you get these politicians to stay out of politics now and represent american interests? and i'll take my answer off the line, but thank you again for c-span. >> that's vicky in florida. anything you want to respond to? >> well, i think her finger is on the part of the problem and the question is what is the national interest and what should be in the political interest of the u.s.? people disagree. and we've elected a divided house and senate, a divided congress and presidency, and

probably no surprise then that people come to these questions with very different perspectives. it's hard. these are hard questions. >> a divided house and senate. i want to point viewers to your review of 2019, your piece in the "washington post" where viewers can find your articles, more than just this article. but this one, "congress's 2019 looks startling in the rear-view mirror." here are the four key take aways. what are the key take aways of last year in congress as we're at the start of a new year here. >> well, a couple of things about the last year that we can take away, sometimes we have a notion that divided government is good in the sense that it requires the parties to walk to the edge of the cliff, hold hands, and jump off the cliff together to make tough choices. but this split congress did not do that. and most split and divided congresss don't do that either. why? in part because these parties

are so polarized, they walk to the edge of the cliff, don't hold hands, each party wants to push the other off the side of the cliff. think about climate change, immigration, prescription drugs, cost of higher ed, all these big issues of the day and yet no action, very little action on most of those issues because the parties really have very different incentives and views about whether or not to reach a type of agreement. so, divided government is tough. that's for sure. there's a lot of hard ball going on, what we think of as kind of pushing the rights, pushing the rules pretty far just to get what you want. the president has done it by telling his staff and former staff thou shalt not testify, you have absolute immunity when the congress and democratic house wanted to investigate both with ukraine and other issues. the president plays hard ball and we've learn speaker pelosi

is also good at playing hard ball. just because the house impeaches, when are you going to send the articles over to the senate. so, it's not a great sign for the capacity of congress and the president to put aside differences or at least to recognize their differences and find a way to get to the bargaining table on issues that most of the public thinks could use some resolution and some resolving. so, it was not a pretty congress at all for sure. >> just less than ten minutes left with sarah binder this morning. if you want to see her work from the brookings institute, it's brookings.edu, on twitter its @bindersae. or give us a call like bill did. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> go ahead, bill. you're on. >> caller: all you hear about iran is going after our military, iran going after our

military. all iran has to do is go after president trump's property. and when he goes -- when they go after president trump's property, every neighbor of president trump's property is in danger. and that's why president obama and president bush didn't do what stupid trump did. trump has put people in chicago, people in new york, people in new jersey, people in florida, people in panama, people in toronto, people in turkey, he has put all those neighbors in -- in trouble or in could be trouble by a stupid thing that a stupid president did. >> got your point. that's bill in wisconsin. this is kyle out of new york, a republican. kyle, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i love the show. thanks for letting me jump

through. you know, so much happened since i dialled in with the gentleman that just spoke prior to me, maybe the democrats that are blocking trump tower and protesting all the time will stay clear and let people live their lives around the buildings for starters. i really loved the woman from florida because it's like it's very comforting to know that there are democrats who will stand for this president and what he's doing for the country. the analyst that's on right now, i would like to do some analyzing on what was going on during the obama administration and where we would be if we were following his, you know, criteria, you know? i just -- i don't understand why everything has to be referred to as earlier or previously. let's call it what it is. when ga da if i was assassinated, it was during obama's call. there were prices to pay and maybe we're waiting for the shoe to drop on that.

how about doing analyzing on what would happen if this general were to continue to live. he had a lot of plans and a lot of promises to hurt people and he had done enough in his history that he needed to be silenced. what are we supposed to do? send another $150 billion over in pallets and let them keep the forklifts. it's getting ridiculous. you can't fix broken. we need to get out -- it's not about a regime change which is what obama did. he just out-and-out killed it. we sent him a strong message. he needs to play well with others or he's not going to be able to play. >> that's kyle in new york. >> i think the caller puts his finger on sort of the pulse of the trump administration and part of their views about the situation in the middle east which is it does not appear to like what had been the status quo and didn't like the cost to the u.s. and didn't like how it was playing out. that type of stability. but that's what was on the ground. i think the question is in the

middle east what happens when you upset the status quo, things can get worse. and i think that is what democratic lawmakers are trying to raise and republican lawmakers are trying to say this was a very important move and previous presidents didn't have -- as republicans say, they didn't have the guts to do it. but the question remains: what's the strategy going forward? i think that's what lawmakers on both sides probably want to hear more about. >> the caller and the washington times today brings up some of the history here inventory interaction between congress and the limiting more powers. when president obama ordered the u.s. to provide air cover as part of the international operation, republicans in the house attempted to block him but failed. mr. obama's later deployment to syria drew more complaints but no resolution. mr. trump last year, u.s.

assistance to saudi backed war effort in yemen, a war power resolution restraining the president actually passed both chambers of congress for the first time ever but mr. trump vetoed it and that left him a free hand to aid the saudi effort. >> there have been efforts for congress by congress, separate chambers, to implement and try to restrain the power via the war powers resolution. often times the presidents haven't utilized that. the obama administration said it doesn't apply. but lawmakers can say it applies and that's what you see in these episodes. one thing to keep in mind, when the law was written in the 19 -- in 1973, there was no requirement that the president sign or veto that resolution blocking troops. it was simply what we call a legislative veto. congress could act to say time

to withdraw those troops. if that version of the law were still in place, well, they might have changed their votes. but in the yemen example from last year, right, they would have voted house and senate bipartisan majorities to remove troops or not to stop -- to stop funding the saudis in yemen. supreme court decision in the 1980s x-ed out all those. if we're going to pass war resolution commanding the president to bring troops home, that bill has to go to the president for a signature. and of course presidents are not going to sign laws that tell them to remove troops. >> outside of war powers resolutions, where else did that legislative veto exist? what are other things that got x-ed out by the supreme court then. >> most recently was the news of

the national emergencies act, the mechanism on which the president decided he could take funds and allocate them from pentagon money and allocate tem had to building the border wall. well, he was using the national emergencies act. that was written with one of the legislative vetoes saying no, you can't move that money around. so, it's embedded in quite a number of laws. and so the intentions of lawmakers in the 1970s, it's really those laws might have been powerful, but they really aren't anymore other than raising public awareness of what the administration is doing and what lawmakers think should be the path forward. >> time for one more call for you. kristine, a democrat, good morning. >> caller: i want to say i think it's really sad and scary that

government type democrats think the same way as bureaucratic government democrats and they think the same as twitter-cats too and they all believe cnn. i guess it's how progressive. but if you start believing each others' bull crap it's scary. like the twitter democrats aren't the same as the government. you know, like ber any bro democrats, but they all believe each other. and i just wanted to say i think that's really scary to think -- too many people think too much alike because the twitter-crats are nothing like the bureaucrat people. that's all i wanted to say, thanks. >> final minute. any thoughts on political discourse, twitter verse, and group think? >> i think both parties have hard core partisans who rally around particular candidates and

particular elected officials. and that type of intensity of partisanship, it's not dissipating any time soon, for sure. >> sarah binder, government studies senior fellows at brookings institute. brookings.edu. we always appreciate you stopping by. washington journal mugs are available at c-span's new online store. go to c-spanstore.org. check out the washington journal mugs and see all of the c-span products. next, a hearing on the nasa work force, nasa officials and s.t.e.m. education teachers talk about working with universities to help get students ready for jobs in the space industry.