that is not what congress said. congress said they were imposing a penalty. they did not use the word penalty only once. they used the term penalty repeatedly. they did not use the term tax. in the overall comprehensive act, when they wanted to tax, they well knew how to do it and use the term tax repeatedly. beyond that, they pegged the power to craft the mandate precisely to their commerce power. how, then, am i to ignore the repeated text with references to penalties when they want to make it penalties and taxes when they want to make it taxes and say that you did not know what you are doing. you are really imposing a tax. >> the text refers to tax alone about 34 times. they used penalty but penalty under the supreme court decision has been meant to mean tax. there are other provisions in the affordable care at that use the word tax but they used them interchangeably with the word penalty. under the supreme court, the test has always been not been a magic word doctrine but does it function like a tax? here it und

support of the congress. he did get the arab league. he did get the united nations. he did talk to the french and the english, but he didn't talk to the people's house, the congress of the united states. and the president did not have the authority to do this. now, the reason i support the kucinich resolution is it sends a clear message to the white house that cannot -- they cannot do this again. they cannot unilaterally go into syria or the ivory coast or any place else without talking to the people who represent the -- the congress who represents the people all across this country. the president should not have done this. and the only legislation that really deals with the problem today is the kucinich resolution, which i co-sponsored. i'm a co-author of it. now, i am going to vote for the boehner resolution because it does send a signal, but it does not solve the problem. the only way to solve the problem is to let the president know you cannot, should no, and will not be able to do this again. the speaker

presidents ignored congress to launch the korean war in the one nine hundred fifty s. and the vietnam war shortly thereafter. congress asserted its constitutional authority to rein in richard nixon with the war powers resolution there's a new law that lets the president commit the nation to war without congress but only for sixty days. it's still a pretty generous handover of power of the executive branch one that in my personal opinion is clearly unconstitutional and should be rolled back by the supreme court that's a little old mother rant it was an affront to nixon however who vetoed the war powers resolution basically saying he was going to play ball with any of these new restrictions on the power he and his recent predecessors have claimed in the oval office. of congress overturned a nixon's veto and passed into law these new checks on presidential power that our founders never. ten to the president to have. from that point on after sixty days a president must ask congress for permission to continue a war. so now the sixty days are up in libya is president obama g

about it's ok in fact congress has an stamp of approval on a war since world war two. the reasons for these unapproved wars over the last few decades have been numerous but most of them at least have had endgames reagan invaded greneda briefly likely taking a page from his good friend prime minister maggie thatcher in the u.k. we invaded the falkland islands for political capital that little war made her instantly popular. reagan saw that said hey we could do that anger needed help reagan in the same way bush sr went to war in kuwait to kick out the iraqis it was mostly over oil and even set it up by having the u.s. envoy to iraq april glaspie tell saddam hussein that if he invaded kuwait the u.s. would consider it an internal affair and not get involved. so much for april's assurances saying to bush senior's q. and gave bush the excuse he needed to have his own war although it was short only a few days long clinton went to war in kosovo a war that was very popular but is still being debated and then george w. bush came to power thanks to the supreme court in two thous

of the congress. he did get the arab league. he did get the united nations. he did talk to the french and the english, b he didn't talk to the people's house, the congress of the united states. and the president did not have the authority to do this. now,he reason i support the kucich resolution is it sends a clear message to the white house that cannot -- they cannot do this again. they cannot unilaterally go into syria or the ivory coast or any place else without talking to the people who represent the -- the congress who represents the people all across this country. the president should not have done this. and the only legislation that really deals with the problem today is the kucinich resolution, which i co-sponsored. i'm a co-author of it. now, i am going to vote for the boehner resolution because it does send a signal, but it does not solve the probm. the only way to solve the problem is to let the president know you cannot, should no, and will not be able to do this again. the speaker pro tem

them let me be and look you're from the mark of the example the president must get approval from congress within sixty days to ordering u.s. forces into combat now the president. will. bring you the latest in science stimson knowledge from around the world. we've done the future of coverage. download the official tea allocation q i phone the i pod touch from the i choose i'm still. life on the go. video on demand. my blog. r.s.s. feeds now in the palm of your. machine on the call. you can. follow in welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle under the war powers act the president must get approval from congress within sixty days after ordering u.s. forces into combat neither president barack obama nor any other president has formally acknowledged being bound by this restriction it would appear u.s. presidents can go to war that well. they can. live. cross talk the war powers act i'm joined by robert naiman interurban he is policy director at just foreign policy and denver we have david kopel he is an adjunct professor of advance constitutional law at the university of denver and in london we

congress. i will emphasize that that does not make it right. i am not suggesting that it does. it still begs the analysis each time of whether or not it fits a particular situation. certainly, panama, grenada, haiti, bosnia, plus a vote, lebanon -- the list is long where presidents have deemed it necessary to take a particular action. in some cases, those actions in design less than 60 days. in a number of them and in some of the most recent and prominent ones, they went well beyond 60 days. in fact, on one occasion, i believe lebanon, congress actually authorized action a year later. we have never amended the war powers resolution, and we have never amended the resolution in terms of this particular authorization that came through the united nations. the ford administration, for example, defined hostilities only as those situations where u.s. troops were exchanging fire with hostile forces. and subsequent administrations, republican and democrat alike, built on that interpretation. but are in

congress which seems to have been neglecting its responsibilities along with obama's defiance of the law senator john mccain has even gone so far as to dismiss the law altogether saying the president has recognized the constitutionality of the war powers act and nor do i and there doesn't seem to be any great movement towards acting but some lawmakers have attempted to have sway on the issue like republican richard lugar a member of the senate foreign relations committee called an obama to respect the act. and present it nicely decorated war began with. nor really has there been much discussion of the war powers act defending his position obama has slipped into double speak saying u.s. participation has entailed a non-kinetic support only and that nato was ultimately in charge of the mission a woman's the do not make up for the fact that the so to speak of nato led mission will have cost the u.s. seven hundred fifty million dollars by the end of september many white house officials say u.s. involvement in libya is to. small scale two plus the last threshold but even if obama were to

that is not what congress said. congress said they were imposing a penalty. they did not use the word " penalty" only once. they use the term "penalty" repeatedly. they did not use the term "tax ." when they wanted to tax and they knew how to do it and used the term repeatedly. beyond that, they pegged the power to craft the mandate precisely to their commerce power. q l.i. been to ignore the repeated sexual references -- who am i to then ignore the repeated textual references? you really were opposing it. >> i think it refers to tax alone about 34 times. penalty has been meant to mean tax. there are other provisions in the affordable care act that use it. they often use them interchangeably with the word "penalty>" ." does it function like a tax? hear it and natalie functions like a tax. -- hear it absolutely functions like a tax. if you have not met the requirements, you have to pay. call me with one thing. you have to check off a box on your 1040 income tax return reporting whether or not you have insurance, right? if you do not have insurance, then the pe

this might do to us or our children or our children's children you know our congress here in the united states legislatures throughout the will devote all these different laws tax laws and corporate was what could be more important than deciding on the moment a genetic future of life on earth. welcome back here with our t.v. let's take a look at the top stories served as andrea to the e.u. faces more conditions following the arrest of its bosnian serb army general previously seen as key to joining the club rock a lot it will make its first appearance in front of the international tribunal in the hague later today. and major fire at an ammunition dafoe in central russia turns the skies red by setting off a chain reaction of artillery shell explosions around thirty people. killed the minister into an album of discord between germany and spain after millions of euros in revenues lost following false accusations the spanish vegetable was the root of the deadly european eat cold i'll break. georgia berries the victims of a savage police crackdown that left hundreds of other protesters in hos

otherwise, the 1973 congress would be making decisions instead of the congress of 2011. it has to take account of the circumstance. with regard to witnesses, i'm the legal adviser of the state department. the footnote in one of my testimony reviews, times the legal of visor's have appeared before this committee and others -- this is my committee of jurisdiction. you voted my confirmation. so i am here for the conversation. it was our position from the beginning that we were acting consistently with the zero or powers resolution, but we would welcome support because as senator lugar said, it would be -- a president always value a bipartisan support for this kind of effort or mission. finally, you asked whether we have made errors. i think this controversy has probably not played out exactly as some would have expected. i'm sure there are many places where someone have urged, and i would have been among them, coming up with -- coming up earlier for more briefings and to lay out these legal positions. for my part of that, i take responsibility. but i do believe that the end

who care and libertarian republicans in congress who care and a good bunch of republicans in congress who hate obama more than the peace and justice. they're at coalition is making things possible that no one would have imagined a couple months back ok real quickly a group of twenty five u.s. senators almost all democrats had a couple qinghai republicans they sent a letter to up on that her again and to have a sizable reduction of u.s. troop parts as end to lie in afghanistan do you see this as significant as you think it carries any weight. i'm not i certainly hope so and so i don't want to talk it down but it's not an action it's it's it's an appeal to a higher authority from our first branch of government to its executive it's an inversion of our government to operate you know kids can write letters to the president senators can begin and end wars and that's what they ought to be doing right but yet we see this kind of these token moves i'm curious as yes or no if you see these as more token moves or actually affected instruments well it certainly cannot hurt for senators and congr

i am calling on this congress for this congress to help america. i am calling on the president as a friend of the american people to help america. and to do that, whatever is heard that will now come behind me and disjiangled chords will sound attractive and it will be about who will burden our grandchildren and the long-term debt but it will not be infused with values by many of our faiths, those of us of the christian faith and many other faiths have an element of the document under wish they worship that talks about the good samaritan and charity and love. and albeit that you are asking why on the floor of the house it is because those infusions were part of the design of this nation when we organized around the concept of forming a more perfect union and when the declaration of independence said that we seek to pursue happiness. we hold these truths self-evident that all of us are created equal. we don't abandon that just because it happens to be june 3, 2011. we are able to keep those values and those values have kept this country on a straigh

speaker, article 1 of our constitution states that congress and only congress has the power to declarear. this point was made best in 2007 by then senator barack obama who said, and i quote, the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. just in case we missed that, the current president got it right in 2007. when he was a senator. i want to quote him one more time. he said that the president does not have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. . while the united states must play offense in the war on terror, and we should not have to wait for threats to materialize before acting, it is not clear, it is simply not clear, that libya posed a threat to our nation that justified the use of troops. the united states troops. it is untea nible -- undeniable that gaddafi is one of the most notorious terrorists of our time and

so today i'm announcing my resignation from congress. yeah you can forget all that because in other real news president obama is getting sued over libya will break down the fight over checks and balances. the sign of the times welcome to bloomberg bill a small borough of protesters is setting up shop in new york city they say they are moving until mayor bloomberg takes back his budget cuts. just a day on the life of a new york city cyclist so what's with the have to find there anyway should the police be protecting citizens and not to mention bikers and said. good evening it's thursday june sixteenth it's five pm here in washington d.c. i'm lauren lyster and you're watching r.t. well take a look at the big news coming from capitol hill today. we know we're a leaner and meaner leader wiener. and maybe this is the theory is right now anthony weiner about to announce his resignation so today i'm announcing my resignation from congress. for a lot of anger in that room socially for the morning for almost exactly four minutes he is here rock b

those are not substitutes for congress. the war powers act is the law of the land and if we don't stand up for it now, when will we? and if this president won't obey it, which president will? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from georgia, member of the foreign affairs committee and also a member of the nato parliamentary assembly, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much. thank you very much, mr. smith. what we have here is two essential arguments. one is more of an intramural argument between congress and the white house. but it is a misplaced argument because there is no president that's come to this congress for a declaration of war since world war ii. and granted we have been in seven or eight major conflicts. so this is much greater than this conflict between the white house and this congress. unfortunately i

congress supplied funding. i ask the utica identify this -- action -- iand decisive ask you to take quick and decisive action. the united states government is united in its support of an alliance and the aspirations of the libyan people print thank you. her look for to an answering your questions. >> thank you very much. we appreciate the testimony enormously. i will reserve my time for such time that i may want to intervene with my questions. i will turn to senator lugar to start. koh, one of the reasons it is important to have this meeting and debate on this issue is that there are a number of situations in which the united states and other nations have severe disapproval of the governments of those countries. as a matter of fact, from time to time, we make speeches and editorialize and work with others in the united nations to exempt to bring about conditions that are better for the people of countries that we believe are under totalitarian or very afar -- very authoritarian mr. rule. in this particular inst

congress knew very well. that is the relevant text. >> is the primary purpose to propel conduct or to raise revenue? >> i do not think that the statue says anything about a primary purpose. i agree with that. he said they did not say anything either way whais the primary purpose? >> i do not think it specifies what it is. that is my answer. the question is the practical effects. >> there are exceptions in the penalty. is that correct? >> there are three exemptions. they do not have to subscribe to the mandate. you have five exceptions to the penalty. there have been some suggestion that a large percentage of those persons cause problems by the same people who are exempted from the penalty. what did the government say about that? >> and may not matter. let's take it under the ball. isn't correct that a lot of these people are the larger share of the problem? >> many are exempt. this is going to what i was saying. >> it is because of low income. what congress was doing was there. >> i do not have a percentage.

it must be authorized by congress. ourselves in america's at least third war in libya. the president took us to war and now on this day we are being asked to support and justify that war in this resolution. i vote no onhis resolution. we have no business in libya. even the administration has said it's not a national security interest of the united states to be in libya. so why are we there? we are there because we don't like omar gaddafi. there are a lot of bad guys in the world and if we start picking them off one at a time we'll be at war with most of the world. because most of the world is led by rogue dictators or bad guys. we have no business being in libya. we have no business justifying this war on the house floor. it is congress' responsibility to defund any further action in libya. and that is what we should do. it's unfortunate we don't have that up or down vote. i wish we could vote up or down today on that issue and let the house decide if we should be at war in libya. $700 million has already been spent in

so, we've been ready in congress. the administration has now weighed in with its own proposal, recognizing that we need cybersecurity legislation to make our nation safer and launching in earnest our legislative process. we have hard work ahead to find the best possible solution to this complex and grave challenge to our national and economic security. as we begin, i'd like to flag five issues that i believe must be addressed as this legislation goes forward. first, we need to build greater public awareness of cybersecurity threats going forward. what's the problem? the problem is the threat information affecting the dot gov and dot mil dough mains, the government domains is largely classified. and in the dot-com, dot-net and dot org domains, information is often kept proprietary by the victim business so as not to worry shareholders, customers and regulators or give ammunition to competitors. the result is that americans are left in the dark about the level of danger that is actually out there on the internets. the a

congress' right to declare war. understand this now backside debate about the war powers resolution. being constitutional. for some of us we believe that the contents of it insist that it is. so my point to my colleagues is, the kucinich resolution was on the floor and every republican had the opportunity to vote for it. why we are here again with a resolution that imitates the debate that we had, i believe the underlying principle and premise is to embarrass this administration and president obama. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. to say i absolutely agree with the gentlelady. this is no place for politics. and that's why as mr. kucinich has led this effort time and -- after time after time. he's had tremendous support from the republican side of the aisle. this is not about republicans and democrats. this is about the constitution of the united states. this is about the 911,000 people i represent b

get on with the business of congress. you know this whole thing is very sad. but what really more wieder gave me this is absurd listen what happened when the congressman did actually get in a few words about the war. if we do i think we can we're going to destroy the constitution congressman dennis kucinich of ohio thanks so much for taking the time today we appreciate it and we're going to have much more on the resignation of a congressman anthony weiner just now that's right she gave him a vote a minute and then just cut him off just like nancy pelosi but it's really mind boggling there were an economic crisis that illegal wars are being waged on behalf of the american people but the media doesn't want to talk about any of that i guess maybe that's what happens when you're a corporate owned you don't want to anger the corporate overlords by pointing out the fact that it's corporations those military contractors the benefit for waging nonstop wars or maybe the fact that corporate profits are soaring while the rest of america suffers see if you just don't say

those are not substitutes for congress. the war powers act is the law of the land and if we don't stand up for it now, when will we? and if this president won't obey it, which president will? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from georgia, member of the foreign affairs committee and also a member of the nato parliamentary assembly, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much. thank you very much, mr. smith. what we have here is two essential arguments. one is more of an intramural argument between congress and the white house. but it is a misplaced argument because there is no president that's come to this congss for a declaration of war since world war ii. and granted we have been in seven or eight major conflicts. so this is much greater than this conflict between the white house and this congress. fortunately i beli

it must be authorized by congress. but now we find ourselves in america's at least third war in libya. the president took us to war and now on this day we are being asked to support and justify that war in this resolution. i vote no on this resolution. we have no business in libya. even the administration has said it's not a national security interest of the united states to be in libya. so why are we there? we are there because we don't like omar gaddafi. there are a lot of bad guys in the world and if we start picking them off one at a time we'll be at war with most of the world. because most of the world is led by rogue dictators or bad guys. we have no business being in libya. we have no business justifying this war on the house floor. it is congress' responsibility to defund any further action in libya. and that is what we should do. it's unfortunate we don't have that up or down vote. i wish we could vote up or down today on that issue and let the house decide if we should be at war in libya. $700 million has alr

this is for the president and congress to resolve.nothing to stop the congress from saying, we want you to stop the bombing. you don't even have to extract u.s. forces. >> walter, let me interrupt and add one thing in the waning seconds. perhaps a footnote issue in the constitutional magnitude. we're talking about expenditures so far of over $700 million, soon to be $1 billion. the president has basically said, unilaterally i will spend that money. usually congress has to authorize that. does that weigh in the balance? >> you know something i don't know, which is this isn't part of the funds actually already authorized for the department of defense. and remember you can't isolate this from the war on terror. we are doing something our european allies who are with us on the war on terror care very much about, helping to stabilize the situation in libya, across the waters from italy and other european countries. >> walter, thank you so much. i think everybody now sees why you're viewed as such a spectacular lawyer. fantastic argument. >

so today i'm announcing my resignation from congress. yeah you can forget all that because in other real news president obama is getting sued over libya will break down the fight over checks and balances. it's a sign of the times welcome to bloomberg fill us all grow up protestors is setting up shop in new york city and they say they are not leaving until mayor bloomberg takes back his budget cuts. so just how bad did the u.s. want to get their hands on alleged russian arms dealer viktor booth well the answer is just a wiki leaks cable away we'll have more on that case. out just a day in the life of a new york city bicyclist so what is with the happy find there anyway should the police be protecting citizens and not to mention bikers instead. good evening it's thursday june sixteenth eight pm here in washington d.c. i'm lauren lister in you're watching our t.v. well take a look at the big news coming from capitol hill today if you haven't already seen it let's roll that tape. maybe this is a theory is right now anthony weiner about to an

that was a terrifying moment, and congress had every right to find out -- i don't think congress ever got as much information was needed to understand what actually went on and there was no accountability from the president to the ag on them. no one seemed to know exactly who did what. >> professor tiefer, did you have anything else on that? >> that was indeed a very strong strong reason to do that oversight. >> with that i think we're ready for a second round. zip ty just talked i will hold my for a moment and go to the ranking member. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'd like to ask the witnesses about the status of the c.r. compares to other historical precedents. on march 16, 2011, chairman issa committed this investigation by writing to atf to provide a wide range of document. certainly we had right to do so. these included memoranda, reports, e-mails and other key medications relating to the death of brian terry, fast and furious and other related conflict. the letter requested all doctors be produced within two weeks by march 30, 2011. when we did not receive the documents

congress has nothing to do with the choosing about whether to go to war or not and the president is becoming an absolute monarch he is the lawmaker who called the president a monarchy just heard him and he'll join us tell us why he thinks obama is overstepping the boundaries. of a loud battlefield in greece so as new austerity measures move and protesters remain on the streets what will the disconnect do for the global economy and what should the u.s. be learning parties on the ground in athens. and turning up the brains behind the brawn the white house unveils a new counterterrorism strategy but what's new and will it work the news starts now . well it comes to matters of war my next guest says the u.s. president is becoming an absolute monarch and now joining us for more on this from our new york studio is congressman jerrold nadler he is a new york democrat thank you so much for being with us so i'm just curious you know really what were you getting at when you said that it's kind of a more extreme comment that we've heard in regards to whether or not the president is acting you know in a

otherwise, the 1973 congress would be making decisions instead of the congress of 2011. it has to take account of the circumstance. with regard to witnesses, i'm the legal adviser of the state department. the footnote in one of my testimony reviews, times the legal of visor's have appeared before this committee and others -- this is my committee of jurisdiction. you voted my confirmation. so i am here for the conversation. it was our position from the beginning that we were acting consistently with the zero or powers resolution, but we would welcome support because as senator lugar said, it would be -- a president always value a bipartisan support for this kind of effort or mission. finally, you asked whether we have made errors. i think this controversy has probably not played out exactly as some would have expected. i'm sure there are many places where someone have urged, and i would have been among them, coming up with -- coming up earlier for more briefings and to lay out these legal positions. for my part of that, i take responsibility. but i do believe that the end

you can follow their progress with a comprehensive resource on congress's congressional congress. >> the british house of commons is in recess. the questions returned wednesday june 8, 2011. tonight we will shave the canadian broadcasting

role in libya without the consent of congress. and today, a small bipartisan group of house members filed a lawsuit against the administration, challenging its involvement in the libya conflict. ohio democrat dennis kucinich: >> the fact of whether or not there are boots on the ground at this point doesn't get into the question of whether or not the president had the ability in the first place to send u.s. military assets abroad to participate in and initiate a war. there's a constitutional issue here, and it can't be danced around at all. >> brown: all the same, white house spokesman carney voiced confidence today that congress will continue to back u.s. military involvement in libya. for more, we turn to: jamin raskin, professor of constitutional law at american university's washington college of law; and charlie savage, domestic correspondent for the "new york times." charlie, start us off by explaining some of the pressure that has built up from congress. it's concern over the scope of the mission, questions of legality. what

otherwise, the 1973 congress would be making decisions instead of the congress of 2011.has to take account of the circumstance. with regard to witnesses, i'm the legal adviser of the state department. the footnote in one of my testimony reviews, times the legal of visor's have appeared before this committee and others -- this is my committee of jurisdiction. you voted my confirmation. so i am here for the conversation. it was our position from the beginning that we were acting consistently with the zero or powers resolution, but we would welcome support because as senator lugar said, it would be -- a president always value a bipartisan support for this kind of effort or mission. finally, you asked whether we have made errors. i think this controversy has probably not played out exactly as some would have expected. i'm sure there are many places where someone have urged, and i would have been among them, coming up with -- coming up earlier for more briefings and to lay out these legal positions. fomy part of that, i take responsibility. but i do believe that the end of th

house i will take a look at the legal debate surrounding the war in libya and members of congress are suing the white house has released its own guidelines saying that they don't need no stinking congressional approval so who is right then we'll speak to an activist whose home was raided by the f.b.i. last year it's back but first let's take a look at what the mainstream media is covering while missing these bigger stories . well it seems like there is no happy ending for wiener gate it is morning all knew it was interrupted on every single channel for a breaking news announcement. if you future as a question of congressman weiner i won't be answering any i've made the statements i'm going to make my understanding that later in the jay he will be having a press conference and after that i will have a statement available and just tell you that up front are we go back to that what let's just say the breaking news this morning was the fact that congressman anthony weiner was going at to resign and that was the culmination of everything of the media had been hoping for after incessantly p

congress got the documents it needed. finally, your success in getting documents, i think, depends a lot on bipartisan support, committee act anything a bipartisan manner is much stronger. in i think it's -- in this case i think it's even stronger when two chambers of congress are after the same documents. if you do not get the documents you want, there's always the next step after subpoena is not satisfy today go toward contempt, and my statement gives a lot of examples where that has come about in the past. and through the contempt procedure, congress can get the information it needs to satisfy its constitutional duties. thank you very much. >> thank you. professor tiefer? >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking minority member. um, for 15 years i was counsel to congress, four years as assistant senate legal counsel and 11 years as deputy general counsel and general counsel in the house of representatives. during that time i worked on a very large number of investigations like this of the justice department or enforcemen

what congress says. what congress says.

i think congress might need a little "limited kinetic talkin'-to."ay, instead of some half-ass measure like bringing home 33,000 troops over the next two years, obama could end the afghan war tonight. by calling it something else. now, "limited kinetic operation" is already taken, so afghanistan could be called a "targeted armament disbursement," or a "mobile tactical munitions deployment" or "a heavily armed semester abroad." [laughter] whatever. anything but war. [laughter] in fact, using the executive power of meaningless semantics, president obama could end all wars. [laughter] then he will finally have earned his nobel peace prize. or, more accurately, his nobel "limited kinetic operation" prize. and that's the word. we'll be right back. [cheers and applause] host: could switching to geico really save you 15% or more on car insurance? host: what, do you live under a rock? man: no way! man: hey rick check this out! anncr: geico. 15 minutes could save 15% or more on car insurance. >> stephen: welcome back, everybody. [cheers and applause] my guest

that is pending in congress right now.ow, congress can advance a set of trade agreements to allow them so sell in asia and south america. to support tens of thousands of american jobs will helping those adversely affected by trade. that is pending before congress right now. right now, we could give middle class families the security of the tax cuts i signed in december will be there for one more year. there are a number of steps that my administration is taking, but there are also a number of steps that congress could be taking right now on items that historically had bipartisan support and would help put more americans back to work. many of these ideas have been tied up in congress for some time. as i said, all of them evnjoy y bipartisan support. of course, one of the most important and urgent things we can do for the economy is something that both parties are working on right now. that is reducing the deficit. over the last few weeks, the negotiations have been made. as of last week, both parties had identified more tha

but he did come to congress. president obama did not feel he needed to come to congress. that is why we need to go to court. article 1 established the congress. article two establishes the executive, the president, and article 3 establishes the judiciary. in this case we are going to the judiciary and saying, look, this is a constitutional issue that needs to be resolved. it does article one, section 8, really mean only congress has the ability to declare war and can the president basically override the constitution of this? host: we are talking with congressman dennis kucinich, who led a coalition filing suit in federal court over president obama's policy in libya. members of the coalition -- roscoe bartlett of maryland, dan burton of indiana, a democrat of massachusetts, a republican of north carolina -- got to say, that it is a coalition when you get john conyers, ron paul and denver and on the same team. guest: the american eagle spread its wings over the capitol -- it needs two wings to fly and. host: the first call comes from north carolina. don, democrats' line. ca

here, members of congress. he's looking around and says, did you ever stop and wonder how we ever got here? by this time i had had enough of the chattering. at the config funny, i look around every day and wonder how you got here. [laughter] i know how i got here. i went to law school. i'm still trying to figure you out. [laughter] anyway, a few months after he had the conversation on january 5th, 1988, sonny was killed tragically in a skiing accident. i tell you these things for a reason. i tell you nothing sometimes for. engendering nine, to palm springs for his funeral. they had all this sitting in a side chapel waiting for it to conservatives. i'm a share and former presidents word. and who comes and sits next to me that henry hyde -- chairman hyde who also loves sonny. and henry was a big bethink irish, very emotional, sentimental guy. and as for talking about sonny, i'll never forget. henry sitting next to me and just starts crying. i'm watching one of my heroes crying in front of me and it's choking me u

>> he hasn't called me and he hasn't come to the congress. you know, the congress is everybody. law, the law and the constitution says if you have a war, you have to have a declaration. you can't replace that saying we had a u.n. resolution, we went to nato. many years after world war ii when nato was set up, mr. republican robert taft says don't get into nato because before you know it, we will use nato as a slip into wars, and his predictions were right. the sovereignty depends on us, not the u.n., and the constitution is the law of the land, and we don't have to be constitutional lawyers to understand that, don't need lawyers to tell us what to do and not to do, because we shouldn't be in office if we don't understand what the constitution says. it is plain and simple, but he's not the first. it has been going on so long. truman was the first one to do it. he went in under the u.n. resolution, i am sure if i had been in congress back in 1940, 1950, i would have been as outraged as i am now. but that's a slippery slope, and unfortunately it is leading -- it is a large particip

congress. we have had 10 hearings on it. we have sent reams of information on with the operations are. i have had all the members of congress over to talk about it. so a lot of this fuss is politics. and if you look substantively at what we have done, we have done exactly what we said we would do under a un mandate. as a consequence, a guy who was a sponsor of terrorism against the united states of america is pinned down and the noose is tightening around him. now, when you look at the history of the war powers resolution, it came up after the vietnam war in which we have had 1 million soldiers there, tens of thousands of lives lost, hundreds of billions of dollars spent. and congress said, if you know what? we do not want something like that happening again. so if you will start getting into that kind of a mess, you have to consult with congress before hand. and i think that it is entirely appropriate. but do i think that our actions in any way violate the war powers resolution? the answer is