Transcript [00:00] The war in Iran doesn't appear to be [00:01] ending anytime soon, but I want to [00:03] remind you guys that on June 23rd, the [00:05] Senate voted 50 to 48 to direct American [00:08] forces out of hostilities with Iran. And [00:10] at that time, the House had already [00:12] passed the same measure. And according [00:14] to ABC News, a White House official said [00:16] that this had no significance, meaning [00:18] Congress votes to stop a war, and the [00:20] White House basically says, "Okay, well, [00:22] we're just going to ignore that." Now, [00:23] the uncomfortable part is that this [00:25] particular vote may not have actually [00:27] had the legal force to stop the war in [00:29] Iran. So, let's get into it. [00:35] Now, the war in Iran began on February [00:37] 28th without a new authorization from [00:40] Congress. May 1st was the 60-day [00:42] deadline that everybody was watching, [00:44] which falls under the War Powers [00:45] Resolution. So, it is to be expected [00:47] that by then, there would be [00:49] congressional authorization to continue [00:51] the war. However, that did not come. The [00:54] Trump administration said that the [00:55] ceasefire meant that the deadline had no [00:57] longer applied, and then the fighting [00:58] resumed, and Congress voted again, and [01:00] we're still having this argument months [01:02] later down the line. So, who actually [01:04] gets to decide when America goes to war? [01:07] Because the Constitution gives Congress [01:09] a job here, which is also a pretty [01:11] significant one. But somehow, we've [01:13] gotten to a point where presidents start [01:15] military operations, and then Congress [01:17] spends months arguing about whether it [01:19] can make those, you know, wars, those [01:21] operations stop. Now, if we're going to [01:24] look at this texturally, meaning looking [01:26] at the Constitution, we have to start [01:28] with Article 1, Section 8. Now, this [01:30] gives Congress the power to declare war. [01:33] If you go to Article 2, it makes the [01:34] president commander-in-chief. So, [01:36] Congress decides whether to authorize a [01:38] war, and the president commands the [01:40] military that is fighting the war. [01:42] That's the basic division, although [01:44] exactly how much force a president can [01:46] use without Congress has been something [01:48] that has been disputed for a very long [01:50] time. Now, the founders discussed this [01:52] concept, or this dilemma, if you will, [01:55] on August 17th of 1787, the draft [01:58] Constitution said that Congress could [02:00] make war. Now, you did have a few people [02:03] like Madison and Elbridge Gerry who [02:05] wanted the word make to be changed to [02:07] declare, leaving the executive in [02:09] Madison's notes as the power to repel [02:12] sudden attacks. Which makes sense, [02:14] right? If we're attacked, the president [02:16] shouldn't have to wait for Congress to, [02:17] you know, finish debating before [02:19] defending our country. But Madison was [02:22] also clear about what the broader [02:23] decision belonged somewhere else. [02:25] Writing to Thomas Jefferson in 1798, he [02:28] described the executive as the branch [02:29] that is, quote, most interested in war [02:31] and most prone to it. He said the [02:33] Constitution had therefore, with studied [02:35] care, put the question of war in the [02:37] legislature. Now, studied care. They [02:40] thought about what happens when the [02:42] person commanding the military also gets [02:44] to decide when to use the military. Even [02:46] Alexander Hamilton, one of the strongest [02:48] advocates for presidential power, drew [02:50] that distinction in Federalist 69. The [02:52] president would have what was called the [02:54] supreme command and direction of the [02:56] military and naval forces. Now, for some [02:58] context, the British king's authority, [03:00] by comparison, extended to declaring [03:03] war. Now, Hamilton was explaining why an [03:05] American president wouldn't have that [03:07] same power. Now, Congress has formally [03:09] declared war 11 times across five wars. [03:12] You have 1812 with the Mexican-American [03:14] War, the Spanish-American War, and the [03:16] two World Wars. So, Congress's last [03:18] declarations for war were in June of [03:21] 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary, and [03:24] Romania in World War II. Now, we [03:26] obviously didn't stop fighting wars [03:28] after World War II, but we didn't stop [03:30] authorizing them, either. You could find [03:32] example after example of Congress acting [03:35] in a way you can see Congress passing [03:37] the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. [03:40] They authorized the Gulf War in 1991. [03:42] They also passed an authorization after [03:44] 9/11 and another for Iraq in 2002. Now, [03:47] you can argue about those decisions, but [03:49] the fact of the matter is that Congress [03:50] made those decisions, and a declaration [03:53] of war isn't the only way that it could [03:55] legally authorize military force. Now, [03:57] the split between congressional power [03:59] and action versus the presidency has [04:01] also been seen in Korea, where we had [04:03] Korea who was or North Korea, that is, [04:05] invading the South in June of 1950, and [04:08] Harry Truman at this point in time [04:09] committed American forces without [04:11] getting a war authorization from [04:12] Congress. He acted under a United [04:14] Nations framework and agreed with [04:16] reporters who had called the action, [04:17] {quote} {unquote}, police action. Now, [04:20] this became a three-year war, and [04:22] calling it something else, you know, [04:23] police action, that doesn't mean that [04:25] it's not a war. It doesn't make the [04:26] fighting any less significant or any [04:28] smaller. Now, following this, you have [04:30] more and more war. You have Vietnam, [04:32] okay? By 1973, Congress had actually had [04:35] had a focus or they wanted to put limits [04:37] on presidents committing the country to [04:39] these conflicts, these wars. So, they [04:42] passed the War Powers Resolution. Now, [04:44] if you've been keeping up with a lot of [04:45] the debate on the current Iran war and [04:47] what power President Trump has and what [04:49] Congress should do, you've probably [04:51] heard of the War Powers Resolution. Now, [04:53] at the time, President Nixon vetoed this [04:55] on October 24th, and Congress overrode [04:58] him on November 7th. So, despite the [05:00] word resolution, we're talking about an [05:03] actual federal law. So, basically, how [05:05] it's supposed to work is that when [05:07] troops enter hostilities without a [05:08] declaration of war, the president [05:10] generally has 48 hours to report to [05:13] Congress. Now, a qualifying report [05:15] starts a 60-day withdrawal clock, or the [05:17] clock starts when that report was due. [05:20] Now, there's a possible 30-day extension [05:22] for safely withdrawing forces, but the [05:24] president has to certify the military [05:26] necessity of doing that, so it isn't [05:28] automatic. And those first 60 days [05:30] aren't just a blanket, you know, [05:32] permission slip to start whatever war [05:33] the president may want to. Now, within [05:35] this, you have Section 5C, which says [05:38] that Congress can direct the president [05:40] to remove forces through a concurrent [05:41] resolution, which means both chambers [05:43] pass it, but it never goes to the [05:45] president's desk. He doesn't sign it, he [05:47] doesn't veto it. Congress in this aspect [05:50] wanted a way to stop an unauthorized [05:52] conflict without having to ask the [05:54] president who started it for permission. [05:56] Following the historical timeline, 10 [05:58] years after this point, the Supreme [06:00] Court decided INS versus Chadha. And [06:03] actually this was an immigration case. [06:05] Here the Supreme Court said that [06:06] legislative action like this has to go [06:08] through both chambers and it has to be [06:10] presented to the president. And this [06:12] ruling created a serious constitutional [06:14] problem for the War Powers shortcut. The [06:16] Supreme Court didn't directly strike [06:17] down section 5c of the War Powers [06:19] Resolution, but the Congressional [06:21] Research Service explains why concurrent [06:23] resolutions are constitutionally [06:25] vulnerable after this ruling. And this [06:27] is exactly the problem with the June [06:29] vote on ending the war in Iran. It was a [06:32] concurrent resolution, right? The House [06:34] passed it 215 to 208 and the Senate [06:37] passed it 50 to 48 with even Republicans [06:40] like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand [06:42] Paul, Bill Cassidy, they all voted yes [06:45] and you had one Democrat who voted no, [06:47] that being John Fetterman. Now of course [06:49] Trump was not very happy with the people [06:52] who voted against him in this. He said [06:54] that four Republican losers voted with [06:57] the Democrats is what he said. So [06:59] apparently exercising a power Congress [07:01] is supposed to have makes you a loser [07:04] now if you disagree with the president, [07:05] but that's just who Trump is. That's, [07:07] you know, what we've learned of him thus [07:09] far. Now Congress can use a bill or a [07:11] joint resolution instead. Now these go [07:13] to the president and they can become [07:15] binding law. But the president can veto [07:17] them and overriding him takes a [07:19] two-thirds majority uh in each chamber. [07:21] So in the House of Representatives as [07:23] well as in the Senate. We did see this [07:25] in 2020 as Congress passed an Iran War [07:27] Powers measure. Trump vetoed it, the [07:30] state failed. So a majority against the [07:32] president's policy doesn't necessarily [07:34] get you an enforceable new law. Now none [07:36] of this makes the separate 60-day window [07:39] just disappear. If you guys don't recall [07:41] back in May, Trump told Congress that [07:43] the April 7th ceasefire meant that [07:45] hostilities had {quote unquote} [07:47] terminated. Pete Hoekstra said that his [07:49] understanding was that the clock pauses [07:51] or stops, but the law doesn't expressly [07:53] give the president a ceasefire pause [07:55] button. Whether the fighting really [07:56] ended and what continuing operations [07:59] count as hostilities, that is what [08:00] becomes the argument. Now, later down [08:03] the line, you had a letter dated July [08:05] 10th where Trump notified Congress that [08:07] hostilities had resumed on July 7th. So, [08:10] even if you accept the idea that this [08:11] was a, you know, new operation on a new [08:13] clock, you're back at 60 days by [08:15] September. You still have to explain the [08:17] authority for continuing after this [08:19] point. Now, Republican Tom Tillis [08:21] eventually switched his vote. He [08:23] actually explained that he'd used July [08:25] 10th as his starting point and he wanted [08:27] serious engagement from the [08:28] administration over the next, you know, [08:30] following 60 days, saying that he wasn't [08:33] satisfied with what he got. On September [08:35] 24th, another concurrent resolution [08:37] failed 49 to 50. There was another vote [08:40] and still no agreement to authorize the [08:41] war or actually bring it to an end. Now, [08:43] all of this goes well beyond Donald [08:45] Trump. If we go back to 1999, Bill [08:48] Clinton launched the NATO air campaign [08:50] over Kosovo and the House voted on a [08:52] resolution supporting that air campaign [08:54] and it actually ended up tying 213 to [08:57] 213. It failed and the air campaign [09:00] continued into June beyond the 60-day [09:02] deadline. Congress then approved [09:04] emergency funding and Bill Clinton's [09:06] Department of Justice argued that the [09:08] funding authorized the operation to [09:10] continue. And there are more examples. [09:12] If we go back to 2011, Barack Obama [09:14] continued operations in Libya beyond 60 [09:16] days as well with his administration [09:18] arguing that America's limited role [09:20] didn't amount to hostilities that [09:22] triggered mandatory withdrawal. So, we [09:24] were watching American drones carrying [09:25] out strike after strike and I understand [09:28] the distinction that they were trying to [09:29] draw about American exposure and the [09:31] scale of the mission, but I still think [09:33] that's an incredibly, you know, [09:34] convenient interpretation for an [09:36] administration that's doing the bombing. [09:38] At this point in time, you had members [09:39] of Congress who literally sued over [09:42] Libya with their case being dismissed [09:43] because they actually lacked standing, [09:45] meaning they weren't entitled to bring [09:47] that particular lawsuit forward to begin [09:49] with. Now, the judge didn't settle [09:50] whether the war was lawful, and I think [09:52] that is important because failing to get [09:54] a court to stop something doesn't mean a [09:56] court approved it, if that makes sense. [09:58] Now, the strongest argument for [10:00] presidential discretion goes a lot [10:02] further than responding to a sudden [10:04] attack because presidents of both [10:06] parties have argued that they can [10:07] conduct limited military operations to [10:10] protect, you know, national interest [10:11] without starting a war in the [10:13] constitutional sense. The Department of [10:15] Justice under Barack Obama made this [10:17] argument about Libya, and yeah, there [10:19] are emergencies where, you know, waiting [10:21] for Congress would be dangerous. That's [10:23] something that I can grant, but [10:24] defending an immediate response doesn't [10:26] explain why Congress should be bypassed [10:29] for months. Congress also controls [10:31] funding, and it can refuse new money or [10:33] try to attach restrictions to spending, [10:35] and existing funds they don't just go [10:37] away overnight, and a president can veto [10:39] new restrictions. So, it takes an actual [10:41] political fight, but Congress does have [10:43] leverage. And I don't think that members [10:45] of Congress should just pretend that [10:46] passing a resolution is the only thing [10:48] that's available to them because it's [10:49] simply not the case. And spending money [10:52] in this aspect isn't automatically the [10:53] same as authorizing the war because the [10:55] War Powers Resolution specifically says [10:57] that authorization shouldn't be inferred [11:00] from appropriations unless the [11:01] legislation expressly provides it. And [11:04] going back to Bill Clinton, his own [11:05] lawyers actually argued that the later [11:07] Kosovo funding that the law had actually [11:10] supplied authorization anyway. Now, you [11:12] could see how this keeps happening, [11:14] right? Congress leaves room for an [11:16] argument, and the executive branch takes [11:18] it. The frustrating part about Kosovo is [11:20] that House wouldn't approve the air [11:22] campaign, they wouldn't declare war, and [11:24] they wouldn't order a withdrawal, then [11:26] Congress funded it. So, those are [11:28] different votes with different legal [11:29] consequences, but politically, how [11:31] convenient is that, right? You can tell [11:33] one audience that you opposed the [11:35] operation and another that you supported [11:37] the troops, while at the same time the [11:38] operation is continuing. So, the votes [11:41] and the administration's positions are [11:42] documented, right? The legal effect is [11:44] where the actual fight is here. There is [11:47] a pretty serious argument that [11:48] continuing this conflict without [11:50] authorization violates the War Powers [11:52] Resolution, while at the same time, [11:54] there's also a serious constitutional [11:56] objection to Congress trying to stop it [11:58] just through a resolution that the [12:00] president never receives. Both of these [12:02] things can be true at the same time. [12:03] Finding a problem with Congress's [12:05] attempted remedy doesn't establish that [12:07] the president's underlying conduct is [12:10] lawful. And all of this is extremely [12:11] complicated, which brings me to where I [12:13] land on this entire situation. Now, I am [12:15] a conservative partly because I don't [12:17] trust concentrated power. You know, I [12:19] don't get to just forget that and throw [12:21] that out of the window because a [12:22] Republican has power. If Obama needed [12:25] Congress for Libya, then you have to [12:27] explain why Trump doesn't need Congress [12:29] here, right? So, there are definitely [12:31] political games that are being played in [12:33] a partisan manner. And you know, people [12:34] from across the political spectrum, [12:36] wherever they might lie, they will have [12:38] different justifications or arguments [12:40] for or against a war or for any military [12:43] operation. But before you defend this [12:45] much presidential discretion, you should [12:47] picture the next president using this [12:49] exact power for a war that you [12:52] absolutely oppose. Imagine if it were a [12:54] president from the opposing political [12:55] party you affiliate with using this [12:57] power for a war that you're not in favor [12:59] of. And honestly, in the end, I don't [13:01] care which party the president belongs [13:03] to. What I care about, what I want, is [13:05] for Congress to actually do its job. But [13:08] that'll be it for now. Let me know where [13:09] you guys stand on this entire issue. [13:11] What do you think regarding the war in [13:13] Iran? Do you think it's gone on for too [13:14] long? Do you support continued military [13:16] action? And what do you think Congress [13:19] should do? I would love to hear you [13:20] guys' thoughts down in the comment [13:21] section below. If you enjoyed the video [13:23] or if you're new here, please consider [13:25] for to the channel. If you like the [13:26] video, please consider leaving a like. [13:28] Again, I appreciate you all for [13:30] watching. Take care of yourselves, stay [13:31] safe, and I'll see you in the next one.
