Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
ambassador -- the war powers act.
Richard Nixon -- like it he vetoed that thing they overrode that.
No president -- -- liked -- but what is the purpose of this if there isn't some clout from congress or is there and it.
Is this the problem is that congress should not be able to limit the powers of the president is is constitutional or.
Or -- what your reaction to wall of this -- ignoring in the war powers -- Well I think it is unconstitutional you know it was one of those post Watergate so called reform statutes.
That the overwhelmingly.
Liberal democratic congress enacted in 75 and 76 the campaign finance laws the independent counsel statute.
And others all all bad ideas.
Tried to correct the problem which they associated with that Richard Nixon.
Now congress clearly has a role in decisions about.
War and peace.
But that comes through its appropriations.
Power One of its most important constitutional powers have trouble with the war powers act is that it attempts to.
Limit the president's constitutional discretion as commander in chief.
And that's where it gets off the rails.
Yeah and has ended go to the finance ignition because one of the things that a lot of people talked about I've heard is well all the congress needs to do it is defund this whole operation.
Regarding Libya and yet.
You can't really do that either because that we you'd have to have it seems like you have to defund the entire.
Military because the president can use for.
Monies from pot -- -- -- when he's using military funds.
I think there are actually ways to draft the prohibition no no finds appropriate -- appropriated under this or any other statute may be used for operations in connection with Libya.
That's -- and in elegant way to put it but but -- -- seen this done before congress can.
Cut off appropriations.
If it wants to and if it is thorough enough.
And that would be a very strong signal disapproval -- I mean I happen to think that we do have an interest in getting rid of Gaddafi.
It's not the reason the president went into Libya and it's certainly not consistent with the way he's conducted the operations that's obviously part of the problem this -- been.
So incoherent policy and so -- the performances.
Commander in chief that it's got a lot of people Republican and Democrat upset about the way it's been carried out.
-- -- the president agreed with you on this business about the war -- -- whether it's constitutional or not there could have been a response saying sorry.
Congress is not constitution where the -- inspect this note.
That essentially said well the UN authorized -- -- I know you were former UN ambassador -- But when did the U wind have authority over the military power to the president.
-- you put your finger on a very important point you know the legal analysis that the White House released the other day was really pathetic it was one paragraph.
And and didn't really make any sense and you're exactly right to the extent he's trying to rest his authority.
For the use of force on the Security Council resolution he is way way out of line he has strained and strained.
To say that the war powers act doesn't apply because we're not engaged in hostilities you know Gaddafi and his people would be surprised to hear that.
And also to try and find some authority.
You land outside the constitution.
That's just out of bounds in my view I think it's gonna cause the president.
More political trouble.
Because it's so transparently invasive I think what we ought to do is have an up or down vote in congress.
Authorizing this action the president could have done it early on would have been politically a lot smarter if he's done that even if he wasn't constant.
-- I think you're right I think is.
One of those where politically.
It's an insult to say that were not involved in hostilities beyond all the other technical rules and everything else but -- investor John Bolton.
Always -- to -- viewpoint on to thank you very much.
Well thank you very much for.
Filter by section