Tim Kaine discusses Repairing the War Powers Resolution

Loading...

Из курса от партнера University of Virginia

Public Policy Challenges of the 21st Century

471 оценки

University of Virginia

Public Policy Challenges of the 21st Century

471 оценки

This course introduces class participants to the political significance and societal consequences of challenges facing U.S. and international policymakers. It is designed to help participants develop skills to analyze policy proposals and advocate for their preferred options for issues on the public policy agenda ahead. The class assumes basic knowledge about governing institutions and democratic processes, while recommending supplemental materials for further study to complement reading links provided. The course focuses on future policy challenges, while examining the broad historical context in which policies are adopted and implemented. As the course evaluates how issues are advanced by private sector interests, non-governmental organizations, and government policymakers, it examines how groups become effective policy advocates. Particular attention is paid to how winning coalitions are formed and how issue framing shapes the outcome of policy campaigns. The goal is neither to produce partisan talking points, nor to favor one governance philosophy over others. Rather it is to clarify the public policy challenges ahead and to enhance participants’ understanding of how policy options are adopted in the real world arena of contemporary politics. Coming soon, you will be able to join Signature Track, a system that verifies your identity when you take an exam. This option will allow you to earn a Verified Certificate, which provides formal recognition of your achievements in the course and includes the University of Virginia logo. Before then, you can complete a “test run” of the exam. You can then re-take the exam after the Verified Certificate becomes available. For information regarding Verified Certificates, see https://courserahelp.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201212399-Verified-Certificates"

Из урока

War Powers

U.S. Senator Tim Kaine discusses how American citizens, in an age of drone strikes and asymmetrical warfare, decide to commit the nation to war.

Student introduction to Tim Kaine and War Powers1:24

Gerry Warburg introduction to Senator Tim Kaine and lecture on War Powers4:16

Tim Kaine on History and Problems of War Powers in the United States 5:59

Tim Kaine discusses Repairing the War Powers Resolution5:38

Senator Tim Kaine answers UVa student questions7:42

Senator Tim Kaine continues to answer UVa student questions, part 29:42

Senator Tim Kaine continues to answer UVa student questions, part 312:43

Tim Kaine discusses Public Policy Challenges Ahead8:39

Gerry Warburg and Tim Kaine post lecture discussion9:10

Познакомьтесь с преподавателями

Professor Gerry Warburg
Professor of Public Policy, Assistant Dean for External Affairs
Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy

Congress has tried to solve this before.

And I know, you know this, because you've grappled with it.

1973, closing days of the Vietnam War, not a declared war, but

it was sort of ratified, acquiesced to by Congress, but

President Nixon took the war into Cambodia and Laos without telling Congress.

And Congress reacted very negatively.

And so Congress put together a War Powers Resolution,

to require a dialogue between the Legislative and

Executive Branches and passed it, in that very contentious and challenging time.

Congre Congress passed the War Powers Resolution 40 years ago this fall,

this past fall.

President Nixon vetoed it.

Congress overrode his veto.

President Nixon said, it doesn't matter, it's unconstitutional.

And every President since, Democratic and

Republican, has said it's unconstitutional.

And Presidents haven't followed the Act, and Congress hasn't followed the Act.

I got obsessed about this issue, in about 2002, around the debate.

Concerning whether we should go to war in Iraq.

Less so about the substance, about whether there was a justification for

military force.

But I didn't like the process.

I didn't like that,

it was being laid on the desk of Congress two weeks before midterm election.

You shouldn't be having a debate.

About war and making people vote, with a mid-term election staring 'em in the face.

because that suggests that it's more about politic, than it is about substance.

And I started to get really interested in this.

And I became convinced when I read this Millerson report that

there was a better alternative, to this failed war powers resolution in 1973.

So, this summer I announced with Senator John McCain of Arizona an effort.

To try to fix this.

A bit challenging, hard but, but to fix it.

And we introduced a bill, talked to the President in the White House about it,

talked to other colleagues about it.

And we want to try to establish a better process,

to normalize a process of dialog and decision, between an executive and

legislative branch, over the initiation of military action.

The bill has three components, then we'll open it up for questions.

Number one, what is war?

What is military action?

Is it a drone strike?

Is it.

What is it?

Well we, we put a very functional definition in

the statute that was recommended by the Miller Center.

War is use of American troops in combat, for more than seven days.

So, American troops going to the Philippines for typhoon relief,

that's not war because it's not combat.

American troops in combat behind a UN flag, well, they're still in combat.

They're still American troops.

So that is military action.

American troops in combat, for more than seven days.

That triggers this statute.

That's piece one.

Piece two.

Consultation.

What does it mean for a President to consult with Congress?

In the past, Presidents have said, I consulted with Congress.

Well, what do you mean?

Well, I called a couple congressmen, told them I was thinking about doing this.

That's consultation.

You need to establish a norm.

What is consultation?

So the second part of the bill, establishes a consultation committee,

bipartisan and bicameral, that would be a permanent committee in Congress.

The President would be required on an ongoing basis, it's,

it's ongoing dialogue to, to meet with that consultation committee through staff

to talk about hot spots in world that may require use of American military force.

So that the consultation committee is always kind of aware of the situation, and

when a President determines we need to use military force,

the President can go to the Consultation Committee, even on an emergency basis.

Provide a report, here's why we need to do it.

And then, initiate military action if it's an emergency.

But, point three, members of Congress have to go on the board, they have to vote.

And so in that instance that I just described, the Consultation Committee

would be required to, to forward to the floor of each house through

the Foreign Relations Committees, a, a, a recommendation of approval.

The President has come to the Consultation Committee, and

said we need to do this action in Syria, this military action.

It's expected to take more than a week.

A resolution of approval will be introduced in both Houses and

debated, as a privileged motion, and an up or down vote.

That would be voted on, and then we go to the White House for signature.

But there would be a requirement that no member of Congress be able to duck or

dodge or, or not be on the record in terms of whether.

American military force should be committed.

This is the basic proposal that Senator McCain and I have put on the table, and

we're gathering sponsors.

It's a very bipartisan issue, but both, both the, the legislative and

executive have been culpable in the sloppiness, both parties, and

members of both parties have been culpable in the sloppiness.

But in a day, where these questions are coming at us with greater frequency, and

in some more challenging context.

It's not just nation against nation any more.

It's, it's multi state actors, and fields of battle far removed from one another.

And technologies like drones.

Far from the main battlefield.

In the, in these complex times, and especially after 13 years of

war that is still open-ended and could go on for a very long time.

It's important that we try to get this right, clean up the process, and

establish that kind of a consultation process, so

that the nation would never initiate military action.

Without a political consensus that says this is a good idea.

So that's what we're up to, and it will take a long time I'm sure and

we'll go through many twists and turns getting there.

But I'm, I'm very excited to be about this effort.

And I'm very excited to spotlight some superb work that was done right here at

the University of Virginia.

And I'd love to open it up, and take questions.

Ознакомьтесь с нашим каталогом

Присоединяйтесь бесплатно и получайте персонализированные рекомендации, обновления и предложения.

Coursera делает лучшее в мире образование доступным каждому, предлагая онлайн-курсы от ведущих университетов и организаций.

© Coursera Inc., 2018 Все права защищены.

Загрузить из App Store

Загрузить в Google Play