there is a kind of rush for everybody to support it. look what happened. i think it's healthier and it will be more healthy going forward because of the fact there is more energy around alternative vision. host: you can read william's the charles koch institute.org. we appreciate your >> "washington journal" mugs are available at the c-span online store. check out the "washington journal" mugs and see all of the c-span products. >> our live campaign 2020 coverage continues thursday at 7:00 p.m. eastern with president donald trump in toledo, ohio, at a keep america great rally. watch live on c-span2, on demand

at c-span.org, or listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. >> the president is referring to the war powers resolution that law is pretty complicated but one thing it does is says if the president puts troops abroad into hostilities or imminent hostilities an 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. what's the constitutional

authorization? and what's next? how long are they going to be there and so forth. so that's essentially what the president claimed to be doing, which is say, i hereby notify that iran, which doesn't quite meet the qualifications and requirements in the law. host: democrats on capitol hill seeking to declassify that notification, make it public. what are rules about what can be made public an what must be classified? guest: that gets into a whole host of classification laws, and members who have access to classified information that the rest of us don't. what i think was at issue there with the president was that 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. host: take us back to the passage of the war powers resolution, 1973. what was the reason that it was passed then and what was congress seeking to do then? guest: go back to 1973, we have republican president nixon, a democratic house, a democratic senate, very large democratic majority. we have a war in southeast asia that has been waging for decades and however you want to determine it. and then pressing congress with republican support are almost een-- essentially at wit's end in terms of raining in what they refer to imperial presidency. the ability of president nixon to wage war without constraints from congress even though the constitution says congress as the power to declare war. that's context in which congress tries to reassert itself. reassert on budget, reassert on war powers.

and -- but it's an effort to try to find what's the grounds in which we can assert our power given that the president is also the commander in chief under the onstitution. >> was it a bipartisan reasserting? gip not only were there bipartisan majorities in the house and senate to pass it the first time but president nixon toed it so we had bipartisan 2/3 majorities to override the president's veto in both chambers which is almost -- can't imagine how that could happen in today's polarized congress. host: can you translate this legalese for us, the ability to introduce armed force into hostilities exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, the civic statutory authority or a national emergency created by attack upon the united states, its

territories or possessions or armed forces? guest: congress is trying to lay out the conditions under which presidents might find themselves needing to commit troops in harm's way abroad. so they're laying out the various ways in which that might be justified. imminent attack, actual attack, self-defense. there's the sense from congress that they're not going to interfere with the president's commitment if -- pearl harbor, again. however otherwise they're saying look. if you're going to commit troops, you need authorization from congress pause we are the power. host: what's the difference between a declaration of war and statutory authorization? realistically, the constitution does give congress the power to declare war. however, in u.s. history we've declared war five times, put but presidents have committed troops hundreds of times. so short of a declaration of

war, luke world war i, world war ii, in episodes where lawmakers and presidents may disagree in war, often congress will write a limited authorization or an expanded authorization. 2001, in the wake of the attacks of 9/11. 2002, when the bush administration wants to go and attack in iraq. so -- or historically, isolated episodes where congress gives the president oftentimes blank checks but open ended authorizations to wage war so he's not compelled to come, or congress doesn't feel compelled to write a whole declaration for war. host: war powers and congress our topic in this section of "washington journal." sara binder with us, of brookings institution, also a professor at george washington university. a good time to call in with your questions. ,

for independents (202) 748-8002. democrats are promising new legislation to limit president trump specifically when it comes to iran, this is senator tim kaine on the floor yesterday. >> i will state at the -- [video clip] >> i will state my aunt set at the conclusion, the u.s. not be at war with iraq and another war in the middle east would be catastrophic. i recognize that some of my colleagues may have a different point of view. so i speak in the hopes of forging a consensus on at least one issue, that issue is this. if there is to be 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 vote of congress following an open and public debate in view of the american people. every member of congress should vote, and 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 in the unique framework that we have, we pledge to support and defend the principal, it is 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 or injured. some will see their friends killed and injured. some will have the remainder of physicales affected by and emotional injuries, post-traumatic stress, the pain of losing friends. and their families and friends will bear the scars. if we are to order our troops and their families to run that risk, it should be based on a public consensus as reflected in an open congressional debate and vote. and of congress debates the matter in full view of the public, and reaches the

conclusion that war is necessary, so be it. even if i were to vote no, 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. host: tim kaine on the floor of the senate, sarah binder, what can democrats do and not do when it comes to limiting the president's warmaking ability. --ability? guest: they could go down a legislative path, or a public path. what senator kaine is doing, and what we will see in the house, 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 commit troops into hostility. ,hat he is suggesting they do under the war powers resolution, each chamber has to consider

what we call a joint resolution of disapproval. which in essence would tell the you have 30 days to keep those troops, and then to bring them back home. the house would have to pass it, the senate would have to pass law,f protected under the it gives some ramp to the senate floor so republicans cannot just block it. there will be votes according to the way that laws works. law works today, is that the president has an opportunity to sign or veto a resolution blocking his waging of war in iran against iran. and then it would be a question of overcoming the veto. guest: absolutely. most observers don't expect too many republican votes, although republicans in the house earlier, back in 2019, in the

abstract, voted to say there should not be funds for president to wage war in iran. host: you mentioned the action in the house, elissa slotkin from michigan is leading that trip, she served multiple terms in the middle east under democratic and republican administrations. callers,t with a few sydney, in connecticut, a republican, good morning. binder, thank you for your input, i appreciate your explanation of the war powers act, i have a question for you, what's the difference between what president trump did , and what president obama did, taking out qaddafi? i feel like there's a total lack of grace, and i think the polarization -- i just don't

fairif there could be any -- when it comes to stripping the president of his power to act unilaterally without congressional authority. question,t's a great because it's complicated. lawyers,s, lawmakers, and white house lawyers have disagreed about what are comparable cases. even in the cases where there was bombing of libya under nato , those wereospices contentious as well and there is a question as to whether those should come under the auspices of the war powers resolution. there is no easy answer. but it there -- but there is a case that supporters want to do their best to insulate presidents and say that the war powers resolution does not apply

in particular circumstances. , whichts to the legalese luckily i'm not trained to go into. these are point out, political questions for the rest ,f us and they are tough ones because they can be interpreted in all sorts of different ways. holland, michigan, on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. we support president trump, he's based in reality, they have nuclear weapons in venezuela, this is like october 1962. they cannot tie our president's hands, we have to have a strong presidency and we have to support our presidency and the military. that's my comment. thank you. do you see parallels to the cuban missile crisis? hard-pressedd be

to draw these lines and weave them together. but keep in mind, that in periods of polarization we are much less likely to see the rally around the president that the listener first two. with the suggestion that we rally around the president in times of war, we do see that historically but less and less because partisans disagree about the president's actions and priorities. host: when did that start? guest: it's hard to know when it started relative to the event, certainly attacks on pearl harbor and 9/11 was probably the most salient episode that most of us have in our minds. and that unity of action lasted in the capital for a little while, with measures tightly related to the war and response to 9/11. but it dissipated pretty quickly

, the farther you got from questions of war, the patriot act and so forth, these internal divisions began to emerge quickly. host: having a conversation on war powers in congress with , a political science professor at george washington university. having this conversation on a day when house and senate leaders are said to be briefed on the administration's actions when it comes to iran, and a day before senators and house members are expected to be briefed. that is expected to take place tomorrow. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are expected to be on that briefing along with mike pompeo, mark esper, gina haspel are all expected to come to the hill tomorrow. if you have questions this morning about war powers, now is a good time to call in. this is linda, out of ohio, on

the republican line. good morning. caller: sarah, on confused on a few things -- i'm confused on a few things. you definitely have to have congress if you're going to war, the american people have the right to know that. but when you have to do a strike because somebody's going to take a bunch of americans out, why can't the president have the right to do that? he doesn't have time to ask congress. can you explain that to me? you're doing a very good job of what you're explaining. guest: excellent. that's actually covered in the war powers resolution, giving the president 48 hours which can be long or short depending upon what exactly is going on, but it gives the president 48 hours to send notification to congress. he is supposed to consult prior, to give advanced warning, but with the law wants is within 48 hours to be told what the

justification, why is this happening, and how long will it last? so there is some recognition in the law that the president cannot have their hands tied behind their backs, but congress aims to bring congress into those deliberations. host: senator lindsey graham on twitter yesterday, right around noon, i will oppose any war powers resolution pushed by speaker pelosi so as to allow this president to have latitude that he needs, the last thing america needs is 535 commanders in chief, americans elected one. guest: senator graham is expressing a view that many lawmakers in the abstract probably agree with, we don't expect congress to be commanders in chief. and we see that in part, when was the last time they passed authorization for use of force?

2001. and many lawmakers say don't we rewrite that authorization? you heard senator kaine saying that yesterday. it's time to talk about an authorized use of force. but the sentiment is that congress should be -- should not be waging war and making tactical decisions, i don't think there's disagreement but there is -- these are momentous decisions and presidents do better when they have popular mechanism ina key our system is for lawmakers to take stands and deliberate on it so they can be accountable for those decisions. pass?why is it so hard to why has it been 17 years? guest: lawmakers i think don't want their fingerprints on tough decisions if things go wrong. they really think it's much better for them, lytic leak, to blame the administration when things go wrong or rally with them.

that really undermines congress's role in the ability of the public to have some say in whether or not military troops get put into harms way. in midvale,s casey, utah, on the democrat line. caller: good morning, first-time collar, thank you for having me. my question is, how does the role, the office of the president and the power of the president expanded during declarations of war in our country? guest: keep in mind that under the constitution, the president is the commander-in-chief. there is the expectation that the administration is in full command of the logistics and strategy of war. so if we were in a situation where congress actually votes for a of war, it is essentially the public authorization, the

public justification to allow the president to go forward. hard tonding that it's constrain commanders, even in the absence of a declaration of war. , in new hampshire, on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. ever since world war i, the assassination of a high official is an unambiguous declaration of the president just unlawfully declared war comments against the law for him to do that. 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 are trying, we are going to the processing congress to take him out. i ran come if you are listening, i hope you can find the courage and do us a favor, you'd be richly rewarded by the press. how is that for parity? guest: very strong feelings

waged by this president and this issue of the general and what to do with regards to iran. and these questions of the legality, even the definition of what is an assassination, prohibited under executive contested, which is an area i can't go into. this is complicated. what constitutes imminent threat? we have heard this term when it comes to what happened last week with the general. what ease and imminent threat? how is it defined? guest: it would not be in the constitution, we get into the white house lawyers and how that happened. but the concept is quite understandable, even though it may be that u.s. troops have not

been attacked recently, there is a sense or intelligence suggests that it could be upon us shortly. host: this was robert o'brien earlier today in the white house driveway, the national security advisor, asking if the imminent threat is gone in the wake of the killing of the iranian general? [video clip] >> as long as there are bad actors in the world, there are threats to americans and the iranians have been making many threats over the past several days. we take them seriously and we are monitoring. we hope that we have sent a message that that will not be well received. that they think twice about attacking america and its interests. host: if there are always threats to americans because there are bad actors, are there always imminent threats? guest: i think that is part of what trust -- frustrates gemma craddock lawmakers -- democratic

lawmakers. they want this in a nonclassified document so it can be shared and discussed. one of the difficulties in knowing why, when, and under what circumstances the war powers act can be implemented and followed, and when should the power -- the president have more leeway as the constitution gives both branches powers, it's very difficult and it does not get any easier to make those choices. the two branches and the two parties have different views about how to react in the circumstances. host: john, on the republican line, in new jersey. caller: good morning. once again, trump has been underrated, he fainted and deferred action on some minor provocation and went big when it counted. imagine this general getting in his car and saying when are we going to have dinner?

next thing he's obliterated. beyond that, sarah, your assessment, i don't think i ran -- iran is capable of waging war against america, i think they understand and respect power. that is the way it is in the middle east. guest: you tapped into what i think is one of the big discussion topics surrounding the attack, what and how will the iranians respond? on what time will they respond? and what has the administration done to anticipate those responses? what strategy is in place? that in particular, even that previous president of both parties, have had that --ortunity to illuminate eliminates the general, but the question is why didn't they? what's different this time with this particular president?

host: we have 15 minutes left with sarah binder and you can keep calling in on our phone lines, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. i want to shift gears a little bit to talk about a topic from our last segment, senator josh awley of missouri introduced resolution to dismiss the articles of impeachment for lack of prosecution, saying at 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 laid out in the constitution? senate, it seems, and as senator majority leader mcconnell says, the senate cannot hold a trial of impeaching the president if it does not have the articles of impeachment from the house.

that's not spelled out in the constitution. and it's not spelled out in the senates roles, except indirectly. but there is an impeachment case unless the house doesn't send them over. so the senators trying to find a way to get around and acquit the president. , even ifwould require it happened, they would have to make it up. they would have to create a role that would allow them to have a trial. because under the in impeachment trial role, that trial begins, it's precipitated when the articles and the managers walk into the chamber. in the absence of that move, the senate impeachment rules don't apply. there is no trial. so republicans i think are struggling. i don't think many people anticipated, i did not anticipate that the speaker

would hold onto the articles and use them to try to have some leverage over the shape of that senate trial. that's what i think is going on here when you see discussions of senate republicans trying to change the rules in the way that would allow them to have a trial. but without the articles, does not seem to me that there's actually the ability to have a trial. do you have 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? guest: fairness is in the eye of the holder. sometimes the holder wears red clothes or blue clothes. argument, as suggested, why don't they use the rules negotiated for the clinton trial? host: that's what mitch mcconnell was arguing yesterday. guest: a democratic response might be that was a republican inate which had an interest

prosecuting an impeachment trial against a democratic president. but this context is politically different for the current republican majority because it's the president of their own party and their interest this time is in dismissing the trial quickly without witnesses. theynitial agreement reached in 1999 in a bipartisan basis was we will have a certain amount of time for the two sides and there will be a motion to dismiss. then we will consider motions on .itnesses the republicans in 1999 set it up to say that there would be some consideration. is that fair's fair? are republicans willing to do that this time? it's not clear, special yesterday's news that john bolton wants to testify and is willing to testify.

it's not clear where republicans are on witnesses. so what's fair? politicians decide what's fair and a dozen often resemble anything that what you and i would think of as fair. host: sam is in washington, d.c., an independent, good morning. caller: good morning and good morning to your guest. one of the points your guest brought up is the justification for war. country has our used false justification. crisishis manufactured seems to be a deflection from the impeachment. generality is that the who decimated isis.

al-baghdadi isnk laughing in his grave for us to get rid of him, because you would see the black flag all over. ,e have that journalist standing for christians in iraq and syria. so the phony media that fox and they areof it -- refusing to tell us the truth about this guy. host: echoing some of what we've heard from iran's foreign minister immediately after the killing was reported, the foreign minister pointing out that the general had efforts against isis and al qaeda and others. guest: the issue, in part, is what will be the consequences, does it dissolve the coalition which has been fighting isis even though isis is quite

diminished? what are the consequences there? and it points to this question about why previous administrations, who had the opportunity to go after this in part but did not, because of the recent the caller raised. in some ways, u.s. interests were advanced by having the general in place and helping to fight a common enemy of isis. and it's complicated, and non-iranian experts, myself included, it's hard to understand. this is not black-and-white, it's hard to know what the right path is for the administration. i think that's why critics have said what are you going to do now and have you thought about all of these potential ramifications? democrat, from st. petersburg, florida. thank god for c-span,

number one. it's amazing, and the reason i called is because a caller called in on the democratic line and said this president was going rogue. i'm a democrat, i support the president. there are a lot of democrats like me that are frustrated with our party, and support our excellenton doing the job is doing for our country, as far as our economy, jobs, and so worth. program,ate this because it gives every caller the opportunity to call in. but i want the callers to also know there are plenty of democrats that support this president, and it shouldn't go into politics. it should be representing our country and what's the best interest, and how do you get

these politicians to stay out of politics and represent american terests? i will take my answer off the line. thank you for c-span. host: anything you want to respond to? guest: i think the heart of the problem is what is the national interest? what should be in the political interest of the u.s.? haven'tisagree and we elected a divided house, senate, congress, and presidency. and it's no surprise that people come to these questions with different perspectives. these are hard questions. host: a divided house and senate, i want to point your viewers to your review of 2019 with your piece in the washington post, where viewers can find your articles. more than just this one, but this one, congress is 2019 look startling in the rearview mirror, here are the four key takeaways. what are those takeaways from

the last year at the start of this new year? guest: a few things about the last year that we can take away -- sometimes we have the notion that divided government is good in the sense that it requires the parties to walk to the edge of the cliffs, hold hands, and jump off together to make tough choices. but this congress did not do that, most divided congress is don't do that. because these parties are so polarized that they walk to the edge of the cliff, and neither party holds hands, they want to push the other one over and nothing gets done three so think about the big issues. change, immigration, prescription jugs -- drugs, the cost of higher ed, yet no action on most of those issues because the parties really have very different incentives and views about reaching agreement. so divided government is tough,

that's for sure. there's a lot of hardball going rules far enough to get what you want. the president has done it by telling his staff and former staff thou shalt not testify and have absolute immunity when democratic house wanted to investigate ukraine and other issues. the president has played hardball, and speaker pelosi, and respect, is now playing hardball as well. just because the house and peaches, when are you going to send the articles over? sign for theeat capacity of congress and the president to put aside differences, or at least recognize their differences and find a way to get to the bargaining table on issues that most of the public could use some resolution. it was not a pretty congress, for sure. host: less than 10 minutes left

with sarah binder, if you want to see her work from the workings institution, it's on their website, and she can be found on twitter. and you can give us a call like bill, out of wisconsin, and independent. the morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, bill. about is iranhear , all after our military iran has to do is go after president trump's property, and when they go after president every neighbory, is in danger. that's why president clinton, president obama, and president bush, did not do what stupid trump did. chicago, put people in

new york, new jersey, florida, put alltoronto, he has trouble.neighbors in they could be killed by a stupid thing a stupid president did. kyle, out of new york, a republican. caller: good morning, i love the show, thank you for letting me come through. so much has happened since i dialed in, to the gentleman that democratsn, maybe the blocking trump tower will let people live their lives and stay clear instead of blocking it. i love that woman from florida. it's comforting to know that there are democrats that stand with what this president is doing with the country. because the analyst that's on

right now, i'd like to do some analyzing on what was going on during the obama administration and where we would be if we were following his criteria. i don't understand why everything has to be referred to as earlier or previously. when qaddafi was assassinated it was during obama's call. there were prices to pay, maybe we are still waiting for the shoe to drop on that. what about if we analyze what would happen if this general lived. he had a lot of plans and promises to hurt people and he had done enough in his history that we needed to be violent. what are we supposed to do? send in another hundred $50 billion 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. we sent a strong message, and he needs to either play well with others or he will not be able to play. think the caller puts his finger on the pulse of the trump administration and part of their views about the situation in the middle east, trump does not appear to like what had been the status quo, did not like the cost to the u.s., did not like how it was playing out. that was what was on the ground. i think the question is what happens when you upset the status quo, things can get worse. that's what democratic lawmakers are trying to raise. republican lawmakers are saying this was an important move and they say the previous president did not have the guts to do it. but the question remains, what's the strategy going forward? that's what lawmakers want to hear more about. host: the caller and the

washington times brings us some of the history of the interactions between congress and the white house and trying to limit war powers. two paragraphs in the washington times, when president obama ordered the u.s. to provide air cover as part of the international operation that acid -- ousted qaddafi, republicans attempted to block him but failed, the later deployment to syria as an escalation to the war on terrorism drew more complaints but no resolution. mr. trump faced an attempt to limit his commitment of u.s. assistance to the saudi backed war effort in yemen. a war powers resolution restraining the president actually passed both chambers of congress for the first time ever , but mr. trump vetoed it and it was easily sustained, leaving him a free hand to it aid to the saudi effort. tost: there has been efforts implement and try to restrain the president through the war powers resolution. oftentimes, the presidents have not allowed the

constitutionality of the war powers and often say like the libya example, the obama administration said those circumstances don'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 no requirementas that the president sign or veto the resolution blocking troops. it was a legislative veto. congress could act and say time troops and ifose that version were still in place, it might have changed their votes. year, there was a bipartisan majority to stop .unding the saudi's in yemen the supreme court decision in the 1980's x doubt all of those legislative vetoes -- text --

x'ed out those legislative vetoes not -- vetoes. so that if we are writing out a resolution commending the president to bring troops home the bill has to go to the president and presidents will not sign laws that tell them to remove troops. host: outside of war powers resolutions, where else to the legislative veto exist? this isost recently, part of the national emergencies act, the mechanism under which the president decided that he could take funds, and allocate them from pentagon money and homeland security and treasury money, and allocate them to building the border wall. he used the national emergencies act, which was written with one of those legislative vetoes allowing the house and senate to say no, you cannot move that around. the house and senate passed that resolution.

it's embedded in quite a number of laws, the intentions of lawmakers in the 1970's, really those laws might have been passable but are not anymore, other than raising public awareness of what the administration is doing and what lawmakers are doing. host: christine, thank you for holding, in illinois, a democrat. caller: i think it's really sad and scary government type think the same way as bureaucratic government democrats and they think the same as twitter-crats, and they believe cnn. you start believing each ,ther's bulk wrap -- bull crap it is scary. the twitter democrats are not the same as the government.

like the bernie brose, but they'll blame each other. and i think that is scary that if you get a group of people who thinks too much alike, because twitter-crats are nothing like the government people or the bernie brose. that's all i wanted to say. host: any thoughts on clinical discourse, twitterverse, and groupthink? guest: both parties have hard-core partisans who rally around particular candidates and elected officials. that type of intensity of partisanship, that's not dissipating anytime soon. , from theh binder brookings institute, you can find brookings beenr 40 years, c-span has

providing coverage of the congress, the white house and events from washington, d.c. and around the country. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable operator. c span, your unfiltered view of overnment. >> campaign 2020. watch our continuing coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind as the voting begins next month, watch our live coverage of the iowa caucuses on monday, february 3. c-span's campaign 2020. your unfiltered view of politics. >> earlier today, secretary of state mike pompeo answered questions on the u.s. air strike that