Trump is Acting Like Obama on War Powers: Venezuela, Yemen, Libya, Syria and the Constitution
Articles

Trump is Acting Like Obama on War Powers: Venezuela, Yemen, Libya, Syria and the Constitution

May 18, 2019



[Applause] good morning Liberty it is Wednesday morning May 8th 2019 my name is michael bolton broadcasting to you live from my home office in studio here in downtown Los Angeles for the Tenth Amendment Center so good morning good afternoon good evening whenever you happen to be tuning in I'm very grateful for you joining me here today we do broadcast live through our channels over at YouTube Facebook periscope D live and I believe I added twitch.tv to the mix today we'll see how that plays out after the fact wherever you're tuning in whether it's live or in the archives the archives over are over at tenth amendment center.com slash good morning Liberty doesn't matter when or where you're joining me I'm very very grateful for you being here now in this episode we're gonna talk about war and war powers now this if you want to get all the nitty-gritty details of the different factions the history and all that stuff about the specific regions Venezuela Iran Syria Yemen all these different things the Houthis of Saudi Arabia all that stuff this is not the show for you you really want to listen to Scott Horton or the daily show not the daily show Ron Paul Liberty report the the program that comes on before my show here on YouTube in fact just as a side note for people who are new or relatively new part of the reason that I picked this time was because Ron Paul does a daily broadcast on YouTube and I think he may also do it once in a while on Facebook called the Liberty report and it's from 9:00 till about 9:20 9:25 a.m. Pacific time so I figured okay well what better time but then to latch on to Ron Paul and add my broadcast at 9:30 till about 10:00 and my hopes is that someone will take a 10:00 a.m. time slot and start doing a daily or somewhat daily broadcast after that we can have this kind of glib erty block of of independent broadcasters that's just a side note for people who like inside BAE so we're gonna talk about war and war powers and really what I'm seeing and I'm just gonna share my thoughts on this and you take it and run with it what I'm seeing is that philosophically what we're getting out of the Trump administration regarding Venezuela Yemen and probably Iran I'm not really gonna cover Iran into any detail is basically the same thing that the Obama administration gave us on Libya and Syria and the Obama administration was unconstitutional garbage so you can't be happy about how it's playing out today if you believe in the Constitution as given to us by the founders and ratified and I shouldn't even use the term belief because it's not like a religious faith at all if you support it if you're on board with it if you think that the founders were right that the executive has no right in any case as James Madison put it in any case to decide the question of whether or not there's going to be a war that's how James Madison put it not me I'm just sharing with you James Madison's words and if he was far from alone James Wilson even Hamilton they all took this position that it's not up to the executive branch so I'm gonna talk about that I'm gonna talk about the comparison in philosophy and the problems about them and then I'm also gonna share with you an interesting short story that I got from Dave Benner we published Dave is an awesome historian he does these kind of daily history updates on his Facebook we cross post many of them when they relate to constitutional issues or the founders over at the Tenth Amendment Center blog or sometimes on the home page but there's this neutrality proclamation that came out from George Washington calling for peace and there's an interesting kind of counterpoint to that that Jefferson and Madison put in regards to the power of the executive branch so I'm gonna cover all that today I hope and I'm going to do my best on that but before getting into it I do want to say hi to some people out in the live chat I appreciate you joining me I love the live chat it's awesome Justin bail Tyler hey Tyler are you doing better I think you didn't you have like your 25th surgery recently I hope you're doing better Jennifer Jean Andrew nappy says looking good and B I don't know but we'll did I clean up once in a while Andrew good to see you nappy Matthew bunkers good afternoon Susanne Sperry I hope you're keeping an eye on HB 296 and SB 367 out there in Missouri and I heard that a House bill 1039 the Second Amendment Preservation Act was finally getting a committee vote that's what Ron calzone sent to me in a message so who knows Michael bogus said did you see the FEMA video calling the founders terrorists I wouldn't support that wouldn't surprise me basically they opposed the established system so they certainly were terrorists by today's definition Donald Dan Reid who's got a great podcast that you should listen to culinary culinary libertarian Joe Standridge Keith the hat guy Joe I appreciate the comment on the new intros I'm trying to make it a little bit more fun we had a lot of people complain about the stupid clock I hated the thing but it was something to get things rolling anyways I'm rambling I appreciate everyone joining me let's talk about this and speaking of Ron Paul the first person I want to cover here is Ron Paul his weekly column over at the Ron Paul Institute Ron Paul Institute org is a good one and it's talking specifically about Venezuela and the Constitution and War Powers again Ron Paul Institute org I've got all the links in the show notes if you're watching on YouTube you get all those in advance unfortunately can't add those in advance I don't even think I've been adding them anywhere on Facebook periscope D live or now twitch but of course you get all the archives over at Tenth Amendment Center com slash good morning Liberty if you want to just read the unfiltered version because I'm giving my perspective on everything I highlight some things for those of you who listening on the podcast version and I'm very grateful for all the nice reviews coming in over on iTunes thank you I highlight different sections of the articles I show it on the video to show you where I am but of course there's more context so you definitely want to read through these if you're interested in more so Ron Paul starts out his weekly column and of course I learned so much from Ron over the years as I was growing up in this movement for the constitution in Liberty and he says his President Trump about to invade Venezuela his advisers keep telling us in ever stronger terms that quote all options are the table and that US military intervention to restore Venezuela's Constitution may be necessary I recently did an episode basically covering John Bolton the evil Pig Constitution hater like so many other political pundits and politicians and bureaucrats they don't it's hard to be part of a government that has 22 trillion dollars in national debt and be in support of the Constitution I think most it would be a very rare thing to be that person and I think you are it is most likely that you don't really care you just want the position of power that's my perspective for those of you who love Bolton too bad I know we get those every now and then it's kind of weird to me who knows anyways they said it may be necessary to defend Venezuela's Constitution and I did a whole episode basically railing on this idea that you can't even keep the Constitution followed in the United States and you're supposedly defending someone else's constitution how about look inward first this whole America first idea is good if you're following the Constitution but so that's that's a side note but it's absurd so Ron goes on he says Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was on the sunday news programs to claim that President Trump could launch a military attack against Venezuela without Congress's approval and I did this once before I'm gonna try again we'll see what happens I've got a video from ABC News on their Twitter account from here from Mike Pompeo on Sunday hopefully the audio comes through if not I've got some editing to do I apologize for that let's see what happens is the US military invasion of Venezuela really an option Oh make no mistake it we have a full range of options that we're preparing for that's part of what we were doing on Friday was making sure that when this progresses and different situation Rises that the president has a full-scale set of options diplomatic options political options options with their allies and then ultimately a set of options that would involve use of US military we're preparing those for him so that when the situation arises when flat-footed does the president believe that he can intervene militarily without getting congressional authorization yeah I don't want to speak to that the president has his full range of article to authorities and I'm very confident that any action we took in Venezuela would be lawful well check that out so first of all of course Pompeyo who's also a supporter of mass warrantless surveillance over at the NSA Mike Pompeo wants us to believe that he doesn't want to talk about what's legal for the President to do and then immediately goes into say after he's talking about all options on the table military against Venezuela he says quote the president has his full range of article to authorities and I'm very confident that any action we took in Venezuela would be lawful I have to repeat this of course he says that I don't want to comment on this and then any action we take would be lawful any action we take would be law basically the position of Mike Pompeo so I'm just gonna say the position of the Trump administration because we don't hear anybody countering this in the Trump administration is that anything the executive branch decides to do on Venezuela will be lawful so that's not positive Ron Paul says the man who bragged recently about lying and stealing and cheating is giving plenty of evidence to back his claim and he says again the president has no constitutional authority to start a war with Venezuela or any other country that has not attacked or credibly threaten the United States without congressional approval it is that simple article 1 section 8 is very clear that Congress has the power to declare war I will get into it briefly in a little bit more detail to cover what they meant by that and all modern presidents Trump Obama Bush and everybody else claims somehow that what they're doing is not war so they don't need congressional declarations and this is a trick this is a scam artists trick oh yes of course we we need the power of Congress to declare war but this doesn't count as a war there's no boots on the ground it's just bombs it's limited airstrikes that doesn't count as war or it's a kinetic action or we're supporting we're following UN we're following a treaty it's not really a war it's a police action and as long as they continue defining the terms and the federal government can define the terms that limit its own powers we shouldn't be surprised when those powers always grow and grow and grow and every single president comes in is worried about any restriction on their War Powers as being dangerous to the lives of Americans now and in the future so Ron Paul is very straightforward on this he goes further he says without congressional authority US military action of any kind against Venezuela would be an illegal and likely an impeachable offense same can be said of Barack Obama George Bush and just about everybody in modern times of course those Democrats who talk endlessly of impeaching Trump would never dream of impeaching him over starting an illegal war thank you Ron Paul for saying that Democrats and Republicans both love illegal Wars as someone who came into this movement for liberty out of the anti-war movement from the hard left former proud Marxist here I would walk around telling people I was a Marxist socialist commie whatever maybe it was for shock value I was probably a crappy Marxist at best but clearly the people who were opposing war during the Bush administration the vast majority of them disappeared when Obama did the same thing and now we start seeing many of those people coming back because they're going to oppose the Trump administration's the illegal Wars should they should they carry them out the bottom line is this is not a partisan issue the Constitution doesn't say if you're Republican or if you're Democrat in fact the founders warned us of the power of factions so this is not not good so but I want to point out and Suzanne Sperry asks a very good question is that a promise to do only lawful things I guess we should probably hold them to that promise because they took an oath already but we know that the the view of the administration and I don't have more quotes on it handy to share right now the administration is that they can do things without congressional approval they took this position on Syria they took the position visa V North Korea they take the position again on Iran they take the position on Venezuela they do not need it because it is their article to authorities whenever presidential advisors neocon pigs warmonger neo liberals whatever you want to call these people Trotskyites whenever they're talking about article 2 authorities they're talking about supreme executive power the john yoo version if you followed all of that during the Bush administration so this is not good again so here's what he had to say in regards to the resolution to restrict action in Yemen same type of thing this comes directly from President Trump I'm sure it was drafted by somebody else now mind you they were using the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which in and of itself is an unconstitutional act it authorizes the president to wage war against anyone as long as he does it within 60 days and reports back now the Constitution says Congress shall have the power to declare war the Constitution doesn't say the Congress shall have the power to declare war unless they hand it off to another branch and that other branch reports back in 60 days it doesn't say that James Madison told us that the executive has no right in any case and in any case means even if Congress tells them that they can without a declaration of war now mind you it doesn't have to be called a declaration of war they can call it the Easter Bunny declaration they can call it anything doesn't have to have the word declaration it just has to be the representatives of the people in the house followed by the representatives of the states in the Senate authorizing the action and then the president doesn't have a say one way or the other so the idea of restricting the president's power over war over whether or not there's going to be a state of peace or war against another country the president is M&E say the president doesn't even get a chance to veto that now of course the strategy is flawed because they're basing it off something that they shouldn't have passed in the first place but that wasn't the problem that the executive branch had regarding Yemen here's what they had to say and let me pull this up again links are in the show notes over 10th amendment senator comm / good morning Liberty and president Trump in his veto message of April 16th of this year this resolution is an unnecessary dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities endangering the lives of American citizens and brave service members both today and in the future now mind you part of the reason they said it's unnecessary is that there's no one know Americans are involved in the conflict so if no Americans are involved in the conflict there's no American soldiers in the conflict it's just a refueling op opposite help it's just support and what the other country does with that is up to them I guess how can they be in danger yeah we know that they are supporting efforts to engage in war against this other country and from my understanding there have been actually some u.s. bombing raids but I don't know for sure again we got to go over to Scott Horton to check on that so he's concerned about the ability of the executive branch to make decisions about this on his own and Steve Lang Hertford is right just like Lincoln did with without a doubt without a doubt but it isn't just Trump and of course Pompeyo is bad Bolton is bad I don't like what Trump is doing here Trump is hiring these awful people this is not a good situation but it isn't just Trump so for those of you who have a hard time you immediately cover your ears you're like oh no no you're calling Trump a bad man you must be a socialist you must love a OC or Bernie Sanders those people are unconstitutional garbage as well I wish they would all get a real job but Obama was terrible on this too and Obama didn't start it Bush was terrible they've all been terrible here's what Obama had to say about Libya and this is from an old article in the valla conspiracy it was originally over at Volcom and then over to Washington Post and now Reason magazine they jump all over the place this is a bunch of constitutional scholars and legal experts talking about various current events and this was a report back in or a blog by Ilya somin on March 23rd 2011 he writes the Charlie Savage of the New York Times reports that the Obama administration raishin is arguing that the Constitution does not require congressional authorization for the Libya intervention because it is not a war but merely some smaller scale of military action it's not a war bomb the hell out of a country totally destroy their infrastructure that's not a war the only thing that counts as a war is a full-scale military invasion or a bunch of dudes with cannons and muskets something out of the 18th century right so you can totally lay waste with modern technology to another country it doesn't count as a war and therefore the executive branch is a king and can do whatever they want that's how the Obama administration took it and the Obama administration was totally wrong now mind you and this is an important quote because we heard some very positive things about foreign policy from President Trump while he was campaigning we've heard some positive things while he's in office regarding Syria even in his veto message he basically said a route about Yemen he says you know I agree with the with the need to address our engagements in foreign wars great nations do not fight landless Wars we'll stop being in them so he's making some good statements Obama made good statements as well quote the president does not have power under under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Union that's what Obama said in December 2007 it seems like all of these people they recognize the problem with war they recognize what's right and wrong as far as the Constitution when they are an opposition figure and then once they have power all of a sudden a change it changes every single time and here from the New York Times the administration's legal team appears to be distinguishing between a full war and more limited military operation on the theory that the Libyan intervention falls short of what would prompt any congressional authority to control decisions about whether to initiate hostilities and again I refer people back to James Madison Madison the so-called father of the Constitution I think it's a bit of a misnomer but obviously a pretty important dude much smarter about the concert tution than anyone living today no one alive not Obama not Bush not any constitutional scholar no one is smarter about the Constitution than James Madison that doesn't mean everything he says is authoritative but it's better than me and Madison said the executive has no right in any case to make the decision of whether or not there whether or not there is cause for declaring war period I'm gonna go with Madison on this one this article regarding Obama bombers Libyan operations we published in March of 2011 as well as from constitutional scholar Rob natesan he says the administration argues that the hostilities because limited do not rise to the level of war as the Constitution uses that word but that position is almost surely wrong and he's being political there that position is almost surely wrong Rob writes founding era dictionaries and other sources both legal and lay tell us that when the Constitution was approved war consisted of any hostilities initiated by a sovereign over opposition so the sovereign nation the sovereign states united under the United States under the Constitution I should be careful how I say these things for those who know starting hostilities against another country or against another group against anybody over there opposition unless they're welcoming the bombs falling this is opposition they're opposing it so any type of hostilities over the opposition is a war so it doesn't matter if it's one gunshot or one bomb one cannon one musket or a million armed forces a militant military men and women invading the shores of another country it doesn't matter one in fact there was a point in time where they said actually withdrawing from a treaty a very specific treaty was considered an act of war so the founders took this very very seriously what was seen as an act of war to the founders was far different than what everyone is falling for not everyone what a lot of people fall for today oh it doesn't count you know they only killed 3,000 people or 200 people or 50 that doesn't count that's not war it's limited airstrikes a police action enforcing UN resolutions a very typical dictionary definition from the founding era this came out of Barlow from 1772 to 1773 an important dictionary of the time I believe Barlow is a Law Dictionary and this is what Nate Olsen writes a very typical dictionary definition was quote the exercise of violence under sovereign command against such as oppose so of violence by sovereign command the sovereign people of the several states delegated power to Congress and to the executive branch that the commander-in-chief of the military is sovereign command over the military when they conduct violence over opposition this is an act of war an act of war requires a declaration from Congress unless the country's being attacked Yemen is not attacking the United States Venezuela isn't attacking the United States maybe their policies are but then if you start referring to everything as war the founders were very aware that if you refer to everything as national security of course they're gonna have the same type of bad result so this article went up in 2011 keep in mind some people have told me oh dude you know what Obama went to Congress over Syria so at least he was he may have been bad on Libya but he went to Congress over Syria and this is only getting part of the story Obama did go to Congress over Syria but it's not because he felt he had to under the Constitution in fact he and his advisors advisers specifically now I'm not sure if Obama himself said it but again it's always putting out the surrogates the Bolton's the pompeius whoever the awful people probably Hillary at the time the Hillary's and the violins of the time take the position that Obama didn't need to in fact he shouldn't in fact they advised against it and let me pull this old article up from New York Times as well this is my last article allowed per month I will not sign up and give him any of my money but here we go from let me see if I can find the date this what happened in 2013 regarding Syria quote the President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in reach out in retaliation for chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress keep in mind yes he went to Congress but it was a political move Obama had been saying for a period of time or his administration had been saying for a period of time that they didn't need to this is inherent executive authority the unitary executive is the John u theory the Bush administration theory that has been built it's the Hamiltonian version for those of you who listened to Brian McCann McClanahan and others Obama took the position that they didn't need congressional authority but there was so much opposition unusually oddly enough that he felt he went there in fact they advised him against it and let's see if I've got another interesting quote here again although mr. Obama said as a candidate that a president has no power to launch a military attack except to stop quote in actual or imminent threat to the nation he acted unilaterally in Libya in 2011 and had no plans to act differently in Syria this time but he found it much harder to proceed alone given the British vote and polls showing that the vast majority of Americans want Congress to decide so governing by poll is not necessarily a good idea but governing by the Constitution is an excellent one and in neither situation did Barack Obama take the position that he was required to do this he still took the position that he didn't need to if you're only going I mean I guess it's positive that he went to Congress but he still is establishing the principle that the only reason to go to Congress is to build a political consensus that has nothing to do with the Constitution Congress has the power to declare war the Constitution says not declare war as long as there's pull it consensus because there is consensus if Congress actually approves it there's some level of consensus I guess there could be a lot of opposition still and now just to close out I want to give a brief kind of nail nail this really in the neutrality Proclamation was issued by President George Washington in April of 1793 and I've got this nice short article by Dave Benner he also did one of his history and a nutshell videos on this that I think is worth watching again the links are in the show notes I will not stop saying that over a tenth Amendment center.com slash good morning Liberty and Dave writes on April 22nd 1793 President George Washington issued a statement that the United States would remain neutral in the ongoing conflict between France and Britain II decide that the country is going to stay at peace this sounds like a positive thing I think it's positive to stay neutral and have these uh that one of the big reasons that the founders set up the system that they did was that they repeatedly talked about the conflicts between the various states the various countries in Europe and they wanted to prevent that type of conflict in the the United States now obviously they didn't totally succeed on that but that was certainly a goal they did not want this type of thing they wanted peace they didn't like war Madison said war is the parent of armies and debts and taxes armies debts and taxes are the known instruments for putting the many under the domination of the future so the fuse so they saw war as the most dreaded or close to the most dreaded towards the public liberty now after the neutrality proclamation was issued this was a unilateral move by the President to stay at peace to stay neutral there were the Hamiltonian sites so Hamilton and and Washington took the position on one side in support of this and the Jeffersonians Jefferson and Madison actually posed it now you can get into the nitty-gritty of whether they wanted to be at peace or not and I don't think that matters but Madison made four main points in opposition during these very famous debates called the cific Asst help this helvis see asal vicious debates Pacifica's hell vicious I'm not good at those old names Madison's case against the neutrality proclamation boiled down to several counter points the second and fourth are the most important for this issue right here and he said the neutrality proclamation was an infringement and I'm reading what Dave Benner wrote here was an infringement upon the legislative power since only Congress could determine whether or not to declare war so Congress makes the decision whether or not it's gonna be a state of peace or a state of war and this was the executive branch taking that decision away additionally Dave writes allowing the executive monopoly on the interpretation of trees endangered Congress's power to exercise its constitutional authority I would think that each branch has a duty to interpret it the best that they see according to the Constitution but that doesn't mean that Madison was wrong there certainly and then the fourth piece the second one that I want to mention today the power to declare neutrality would rupture the constitutional bounds of the presidential office setting a dangerous and kingly president and the founders during the ratification debates the ratifiers the general public the representatives in the ratification conventions were very much concerned about kingly powers only a king would have the power to not only declare but wage war that's why they wisely put that half of that decision in the legislative branch in the other half in the executive in Madison at one point said there is no more part of the Constitution no part of the Constitution with more wisdom than the sections dividing those two and again Madison said the wisest thing that they did was separate those powers and here we see Obama and I'm not even going back to the Bush administration and further back the Gulf of Tonkin incident the Korean War all these different things Panama etc but we see all through modern times that these decisions are in the same place and I did an episode talking about the AUMF AUMF and I see two chicken man posted about that but the AUMF that they've passed authorization to use military force while seemingly a declaration of war really is and it's basically telling the executive branch you have the authority to make this decision and again if we go back to James Madison if the executive branch never has it as Authority in any case to make a decision whether or not there's going to be war against another country then even if Congress tells them tells the executive you have the power to do this this is again unconstitutional according to James Madison so looking over in the the live chat hi to RC andrews over in Augusta Georgia Justin Bale uh Larry Clarke says the CIA and FBI should not be able to commit hostilities either without congressional authorization since they both fall under the executive absolutely and the CIA has waged all kinds of wars around the country eric Nantz says few and defined of course a few and defined so if we're talking about who has the power to do what there's nowhere in the Constitution that says that the judiciary can establish post offices and post roads or that Congress is the commander-in-chief of the military or the executive branch is can is the power to declare war they they chose who is gonna have the power to do things to create this balance among the branches now unfortunately the fourth branch is really the people of the several states and people tend to forget about that and they think that relying on these three branches to balance each other out is going to somehow limit federal power but again if you rely on the feds to do that you're always going to have more and more and more power Suzanne Sperry says there was consensus for the Fugitive Slave Act absolutely consensus does not always mean a good thing I agree with that Justin Bayless is funny that they say cyber attacks are an act of war but bombs falling isn't yes of course it was an act of war that Russia interfered with the election of course but not an act of war to have sanctions bombs falling whatever it may be think about the amount of people that died due to the sanctions against Iraq before the full-scale invasion and the Clinton administration and I forget Madeleine Albright when asked if 500,000 children dying was worth it she says yes it was worth it that's not an act of war according to them not just sanctions that's just economic it doesn't count Larry Clarke absolutely correct over on YouTube no military action should be taken by the president at all without congressional authorization and Shane hazel who does the rebellion podcast also another really good show that you should check out only an article 5 amendment can change the power specifically delegated by the Constitution absolutely but people have allowed it for too long where they either expand the scope of their powers or they rely on the judiciary to tell us the federal courts to tell us and I'm just scrolling through it just in another good comment a vote on whether or not something is legal does not make it thus so I hope you guys found this interesting it is a very very important issue to me I don't cover it as much as I probably would love to I think I'm just deferring to other people who are better at covering this following the foreign policy details and the history like Scott Horton Ron Paul the Tom wood showed there's a lot of good things on foreign policy when you tune in there these are great places to get a little bit more detail but when you tie it in with the Constitution I think I'm seeing the pattern that it doesn't matter like Tom woods often says it doesn't matter who you vote for on foreign policy you always get John McCain or you always get George Bush because it doesn't matter who you vote for you still get the position from these people that somehow the executive branch is the only one that makes this decision and any congressional approval is just for political support which is totally wrong according to the founders I'm gonna be on Team James Madison on this one for sure no matter what anybody tells me alive today anyways again I hope you found this interesting educational insightful blood-boiling whatever it may be if you support the show there are three very easy action four very easy actions that you can take that are totally free one I should preface this by saying that all the platforms that you may watch or listen on are very easily triggered that means their algorithms are triggered so if you take any of these actions it will tell the platform to present the show to more people for example smash the like button subscribe that's the second one leave a comment whether it's live or in the archive and then of course reviews if you're over on iTunes all that stuff is very very helpful it helps us spread the word it helps tell other people to pay attention to the show we're getting more and more subscribers more viewers more listeners slowly but steadily and surely and I'm very very grateful for that we'll see you again here on Friday morning and of course every Monday Wednesday Friday at 9:30 a.m. Pacific time if you've got ideas for a future show make sure to email me over at team at 10th amendment center comm I read everything but don't get to reply to everything and I appreciate all the feedback I hope you have an awesome day thanks again for being here

Only registered users can comment.

  1. I have enjoyed these podcasts, however it doesn't get to the root of the matter. Our constitutional republic as created by the founding fathers came to an end with Abraham Lincoln and progressively became worse from there. If you search for Stephen Pratt on YouTube, you can find several of his informative lectures on our country's history. It's a shame he has passed on. This is just a link to one of them:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7T4UYViCMQ

  2. So, I had a serious question in the chat that got bogged down in a back-and-forth. Not that I necessarily expected it to be addressed in the livestream because it is highly speculative, but am I completely wrong in thinking that, if the Constitutional norm were resurrected that Congress formally declares wars and that such a declaration is required for the President to deploy military forces, we would still likely have had, at least, the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, since the majority of Congress seemed to be in favor of them? Maybe this wouldn't have been the case with many of the interventions in which the US government has been involved, but the counterfactual is that all of them would have been avoided, if only it were required that Congress declare war.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *