thing, such as the rejection of the treaty of versailles. i would like to make three different points. one of them is that congress works at a disadvantage in form policy and will continue to do so as long as united states as an activist foreign policy. politics will shape what congress does in foreign affairs. and congress influences foreign policy, directly and indirectly. my first point is that congress operates at a disadvantage in foreign policy and will as long as we have this policy. if you look at the constitution, it is important foreign-policy powers to congress and the president. they say the constitution is an invitation to struggle over

finally, in june of that year, the treaty of versailles was signed. it provided for a league of nations, an international body that would mediate disputes and hopefully prevent war in the future. but when woodrow brought the treaty back to the united states to be ratified by the senate, the senate refused. they were jealous of their constitutional prerogative to declare war and they were afraid the league of nations would oblige them when they didn't want to. they wanted to add amendments or reservations. and woodrow wanted the document ratified as written. so he undertook a speaking tour by train all across the united states to california and back. it was september. it was hot. of course, there was no air conditioning in these metal cars. he was speaking every day, sometimes more than once. as they returned from california and wound up through the rocky mountains, the altitude began to tell on his blood pressure. in pueblo, colorado, he collapsed. they raced back to washington, but it was too late. a few days after they arrived, he suffered a massive

he did that through pointing out the treaty of versailles would be tragic for europe and would lead to a second world war, which, of course, was triggered hayek was an australian and was in the austrian army during world war ii. he knew from his own personal experience the amount of inflation that devastated austria at the end of the war was, that keynes was right. that was the way towards extreme politics. and so he started off knowing keynes was sort of a mythical heroic figure. and in a way that departed from hayek. hayek always maintained enormous respect for keynes. if there wasn't for churchill i don't think you could doubt that keynes was the greatest englishmen in the 20th century. he was an astonishing creature. i wish we could meet him. he was plainly a person capable of juggling with many different balls at the same time. his achievements are astonishing, even if just one career was on track in good. he would've been an an astonishing person. he bought pictures for the national gallery. he was on insurance company, the board. a day trader. he used to stay in bed until noon e

and he did that through the point guard of the treaty of versailles would be tragic for europe and would lead to a second world war. hayek was of course an austrian and was in the austrian army during world war i. he knew from his own personal experience that the amount of inflation that totally devastated austria at the end of the war and keynes was right about it. that was the way towards the extreme politics. and so he was -- he started off knowing he was a mythical heroic figure and in a way that never really departed from hayek. he always maintained the enormous respect to read by the way almost everybody that came across him. i don't think you could doubt that keynes was the great from the 21st century. he was an astonishing feature. i wish we could meet him. he was capable of juggling many different goals of the same time. his achievements were astonishing even with just one career on track and good he would be an astonishing person. but actually he ran kings college cambridge. he brought pictures from the national gallery. he was on the insurance company -- she used to stay in be

time that hayek move into the fall of planet of the economist and pointing out to the treaty of versailleshe end of the war and was hayek keynes was right about it. that was the way towards the extreme politics and so he started off knowing keynes was a mythical figure and in a way that never really departed. he always maintained an enormous respect strength and that by the way almost anybody who can across him because for churchill i didn't -- you could doubt that keynes was the greatest of the 20th century. he was an astonishing creature. i wish we could meet him. he was a person capable of judging with many different at the same time. his achievements were astonishing even if just one career was on track and good he would have been an astonishing person. but actually he ran and established the national gallery. he used to stay in bed until noon every day on the telephone to the stockbroker. he really understood the market even though people say they admire the market. >> host: he is just seen as the face of big government, where in fact was actually in many ways a capitalist in the capi

as we recall from the treaty of versailles, he largely had that attitude when he was president, yet the founders had congress in mind as a player in in foreign affairs when it gave exclusive powers to declare war, define and punish felonies on the high seas, impose duties and regulate the value not only of u.s. currency but foreign currency, something in the news these days. the senate has shared powers with the president on ambassadorships and treaties. congress's powers of the purse goes to domestic matters and foreign and military affairs as well. i was thumbing through the 286 pages of house authorization for foreign relations, and it covers a lot of territory, and i think they considered 77 amendments during july, but notwithstanding these separate powers, the intent of the framers that congress should act as a check both at home and abroad. congress has tended to defer more and more to the president since the u.s. became an international power, and when it does get involved of making foreign policy, is accused of meddling. i recall henry kissinger saying it is like answer paddling

as we recall from his fight with the senate over the treaty of versailles in 1919-20 he largely had that attitude when he was president. yet the founders had congress in mind of a player in foreign affairs when it gave exclusive powers to declare war, regulate commerce with foreign nations, define and punish felony sunni i see, offensive against the laws of nations, regulate the value not only of u.s. currency but foreign currency. something very much in the news these days. the senate has shared power with the president on ambassadorships and treaties. most fundamentally congress's power of the purse goes not only to domestic matters but foreign and military affairs as well. i was just thumbing through the 286 pages of the house foreign affairs authorization for foreign relations and it covers a lot of territory and they consider it seven amendments during their markup during july. notwithstanding these separate and shared power is the intent of the framers that congress should act as a check and the executive branch at home and abroad congress tended to be for more to the president sin

getting in the way of the president doing the right thing, such as the rejection of the treaty of versailles. i would like to make three different points. one of them is that congress works at a disadvantage in form policy and will continue to do so as long as united states as an activist foreign policy. politics will shape what congress does in foreign affairs. and congress influences foreign policy, directly and indirectly. my first point is that congress operates at a disadvantage in foreign policy and will as long as we have this policy. if you look at the constitution, it is important foreign-policy powers to congress and the president. they say the constitution is an invitation to struggle over foreign policy. but since world war two, this has gone decisively in favor of the white house. the most important is the changed u.s. role around the world. and the set -- to change perceptions of presidential power. james madison became president during modern times and the house representatives passed a bill to pass to him the decision of whether to go to war with france. madison said that the

unyielding fight with the senate over the treaty of oversight, he still largely had that attitude when versailles that attitude when he was president. i think we will have a little more to say on that. the senate, of course, shares power with the president on ambassadorships and treaties. the power of the purse not only for domestic and foreign affairs is shared as well. i was just thumbing through the house foreign affairs authorization for foreign relations, and it covers a lot of territory, believe me. i think they had 75 amendments during their markup in july. notwithstanding these separate and shared powers, the intent of the framers was that congress should act as a check on executive power. when congress does get involved in making foreign policy, it is often accused of micromanaging, of excessive meddling insensitive affairs. i recall very vividly former secretary of state henry kissinger, he said this after he left office of course, he said that congress's role in foreign policy is a little like 535 and its floating down a river on a log, each thinking they are steering the thing. i lear

getting in the way of the president doing the right thing such as the rejection of the treaty of versailles. i would like to make three different points. one of them is that congress works at a disadvantage in form policy and will continue to do so as long as united states as an activist foreign policy. politics will shape what congress does in foreign affairs. and congress influences foreign policy directly and indirectly. my first point is that congress operates at a disadvantage in foreign policy and will as long as we have this policy. if you look at the constitution it is important foreign-policy powers to congress and the president. they say the constitution is an invitation to struggle over foreign policy. but since world war two this has gone decisively in favor of the white house. the most important is the changed u.s. role around the world. and the set -- to change perceptions of presidential power. james madison became president during modern times and the house representatives passed a bill to pass to him the decision of whether to go to war with france. madison said that they c