I want to say a couple of words about this to me a very complicated case David Ward talked about the Jerusalem passport case was decided junior this year and I i just find i don't know how to even how to count up the votes maybe you can say it's 63 but justice thomas was all over the place this might be five and a half to three and a half but even the majority opinion is so labored and i really don't understand why the court decided that that statute passed by congress in 2002 got congress into the business of recognizing of the government's the statute said that if you have a child born in Jerusalem normally in the past should be put Jews LeMond there on the passport but under the statute you could put Israel and yes I understand a political matter very sensitive about Jerusalem but I didn't see that has anything to do with the recognition power so I think the majority strained to get there and certainly the three dissenters didn't see anything to do with recognition at all of anyways if you ever want to again a headache read read that decision I want to talk very broadly about the war power that is quite remarkable that from seventeen eighty nine to nineteen fifty no president went to war against another country unless they first came to Congress either for a declaration or for authorization the first war we had the quasi war against France wasn't declared it was authorized by about twenty statutes so that's quite a record seventeen eighty nine to nineteen fifty and in between that time I want to say a couple things about some of the wars the war against Mexico President Polk said it he sent troops down on the border and they were hostilities and he said he said there have been American blood has been shed on American soil well if anyone should know that he didn't know we're what was down there in terms of the boundaries are big be poked because the previous year he said we don't know where the boundary is we should have some negotiations so that's a book was published one or two years ago by woman on the Mexican War and she says the first war started by a presidential lie and I think it's correct it was a lie we don't know American bloodshed on American soil you don't even where the boundary is down there and as you know some of you probably know that the House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning folk for unnecessarily and unconstitutionally starting a war and one of the persons who voted for that was his name without of Illinois Abraham Abraham Lincoln voters were that so this you know the first kind of ? about a presidential initiative and polk if you read his diary he wanted that land one way or another so and something about these war against spain in 1898 we sent the battleship maine down to havana and it blew up and there was a naval inquiry board why did it blow up and after two or three weeks they decided it was blown up from some outside mine and of course so the newspapers right away had a drawing of the the ship and then a little line coming out to Spain Spain I said it no one knew why the thing exploded there were a lot of engineers at that time who said it most likely exploded because if you can believe it the shifts at that time had one compartment for the cold and right next to it was a compartment with all the munitions and if you know anything about cold in chemistry it oxidizes particularly in warm moist climates and this mode is quite likely that it caught fire and set off the explosives then several ships had already had that problem with fires so there's another ? there's no reason that I've ever seen that Spain wanted to get to war with us I mean it's just absurd that they would ever try that so there's a kind of two question marks about those two wars and the third thing I want to talk about because it gets up to what happened in nineteen fifty where the war against Korea is Woodrow Wilson you know the versailles treaty was under consideration and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge wanted an amendment several amendments all having to do to preserve the war power of Congress and if you know anything about Woodrow Wilson he just wasn't the kind of person to compromise or work with the other side he just wasn't like very very moralistic and he at that time when he said that he wouldn't accept the lodge amendments he wrote a letter to Senator Hitchcock said there's nothing wrong with the lodge amendments nothing wrong at all it's just stated what was obvious so because of his stubbornness and his rigidity we didn't get the treaty of versailles and the reason I mention that is that during World War two when there was a thought again of having the world body which we didn't join the night by 1943 certainly there are negotiations among the Allies to have a world body of the United Nations and everyone understood what happened under Woodrow Wilson that you had to protect the power of Congress over war so when the Senate in 1945 was debating the UN Charter President Harry Truman was in pottstown and he cabled a senator and the senator put it in the congressional records or it's a public document and President Truman said I want you to understand if I ever use US troops in a UN action i will first come to Congress for authority ok that's just a presidential statement very interestingly the Senate in passing the UN Charter there's language in there the Security Council wasn't going to have troops so the the Charter says that member states will contribute to the Security Council troops equipment money and so forth quote in accordance with their constitutional processes that's the language and the UN Charter that meant that every country that was going to get itself involved in a UN military action how to decide what are our constitutional processes maybe if you have a parliamentary government you leave it to the Prime Minister something but admit that Congress added since I what are our constitutional processes and the house and the Senate held hearings and and reported legislation and it it decides how we are going to participate in the UN action is called the UN participation act in section 6 says before president sends US troops to you in action he will first come to Congress to get approval that goes a president truman and without any objections without any signing statement or anything else he signs it so that's the law and still in the u.s. code today that is how we do things constitutionally not just that tutorial ii but constitutionally so 1950 president truman uses US troops goes to not to Congress for authority he goes to the Security Council he gets two resolutions and the basis of those resolutions he goes to war against North Korea I think that's another case that bounced back against the president who decided to act unilaterally because once he got into war is one thing to push north korea back over the line but then they decided to go north you know with china come in or not and they said no no chinese night well China did come in by the millions and it turned in to a stalemate a very costly one for the United States and for career and for China millions literally died Chinese and North Koreans and South Koreans to put back to the regular line that was there before Truman paid a price the Democratic Party paid a price for that kind of a war for that kind of a presidential war so after you talked about those Truman unconstitutionally to me created started a war at great cost the united states and to our constitutional system but once you do something that's illegal and unconstitutional people treated as a precedent and pretty soon President Clinton is using force various places never came to Congress at one time and he wanted to use military force in Haiti and he goes the security council gets a resolution he wants to use military force in Bosnia goes to security council gets a resolution you know the Truman model the unconstitutional model he wanted to use force in Kosovo he went to the Security Council we're not giving you authority so he goes to NATO allies and they supposedly the authorizing agents you know this is absurd situation and then you have President Barack Obama deciding to use military force at the nobel prize prize for for peace and he decides he's going to use military force in Libya he doesn't come to Congress either he goes the Security Council and they passed a resolution not to authorize widespread military operations but to protect and send civilians it's odd that that the Arab League supported it because they didn't know exactly one thing that had to be done to protect innocent civilians in Libya was to have a no-fly zone and I think the Arab League thought no-fly zone that's pretty peaceful well the only way you can have a no-fly zone is bombed the hell out of Libya any kind of ammunition any kind of artillery anything down there's you're going to use it and and and later when Obama wanted to get authority to go to action against Syria this time you didn't get support from the Arab League because I could see what a no-fly zone is they got they got tricked on that so instead of following the UN resolution to protect innocent civilians we were not supposed to team up with different rebel group but that's exactly what the United States started to do we don't know one rebel group after another in terms of any kind of their credentials or what their objectives are what their values are so that was it and then of course it escalates into getting rid of Gaddafi and I was watching President Obama give a talk in in November September of 2011 and it's over the State Department and all the big people over there John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and everyone a big big big speech and and this is on the monitor him is he can read this is this not coming out of his mouth this is a prepared speech and I'm listening to him of course he's a great orator of it I'm listening and Obama said I want the countries in the Middle East to understand that we are for the principle of non-violence I said you bombing Libya and he said I want the countries and abilities to understand that we are for the principle of self-government you get to pick your own rules I see you're trying to get rid of Gaddafi so Ivan how the hell the administration can write a speech was it some farcical so stupid you know so contradictory so Obama initially said with regard to Libya this will be a bad of days not weeks that's a mistake if you don't know what's coming don't make predictions like that so instead of being days not weeks it was seven months and he did get a legal position from the Office of Legal Counsel supporting military action but oh well see said we're proving this we don't regard this as war what you're doing we we got is some kind of a military action it's not war and it would be war if we're of a prolonged nature now I'm just going to pause on that prolonged nature because on the current situation against the Islamic state we have statements from the Defense Department from the White House from the White House spokesperson people generals everyone all talking about the legal authority for going to military action against the Islamic state and as you said David it could be the 2001a umf could be the 2002 amf hello there's one part of government that hasn't said anything to my knowledge it's the Justice Department and I think I guess you know how can the Justice Department not weigh in on legal authority constitutional authority for what's going on against the Islamic state and my guess is that I will see opinion back in April 2 2011 because they said anything of a prolonged nature will the Obama administration it says this is going to last not just two or three years but maybe a decade or so so i think i will see Titus tied his hands on this so it's incredible to me that all LC is just not speaking at all not giving any legal guidance at all I was really surprised in the Vietnam War when we had a draft of the public which is so essential for self-government and small republican government smaller republica govern they're out in the streets and they were protesting and all kind of things going on in and then then once we have a volunteer army that seemed to die out but I was really surprised when Obama decided he wanted to use military force against Syria the red line of business and I was really stunned that how many constituents told their members of Congress senators and House members no absolutely in military areas like saying no I mean there have been so many people coming about dead and and crippled and I don't know if you remember Obama said he wanted to he had the authority to do it by himself he said unilateral authority but I think under the Constitution that Constitution works best that the two branches work jointly and I think I don't know if he'd ever would have gotten authority from the Senate would have been awfully close but I think was clear he's not going to get any authority from the house so that was something where our small our Republican system did work so I think we've been acting unconstitutionally from 1950s to the present time and that's my cheery note for today