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

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

So let, let's start with the, the issue.

1787, after the articles of confederation were not sufficient, we needed to

draft a constitution to create a federal government that was powerful enough to,

to lead a great nation but, that wasn't so

powerful that it would squash states and, and cities.

So that balance was, was struck.

And framers of the Constitution, Madison especially,

grappled with the question of war.

And they set up constitutional language that's been uniform since then,

that was relatively clear.

When it comes to war, Congress declares war.

And since Congress has the power of the purse Congress also funds

military operation.

The President, the executive, remember the legislature's in article one.

We like to say us legislatures we're, we're the article one branch.

The executive is the article two branch and

the President is the commander in chief.

So the idea right from the beginning was to initiate or

start a war, Congress had to say yes.

But then once initiated, the last thing you would want is 535 commanders in chief,

trying to micro manage everything.

There should only be one.

So Congress would say yes, and

then the President would prosecute military action once initiated.

Now, even the framers knew, especially in a day when Congress recessed,

everyone rode horseback back home.

And it would take them a long time to get back to Washington.

Congress knew that there might be times when a president would have to

take action immediately to defend the nation, to protect American di,

diplomacy, or diplomats, or embassies abroad.

So that a president might have to act before Congress said yes.

However.

The framers clearly intended, even in those instances, congress would

ultimately have to say yes, ratify a presidential decision in an emergency and

say this military action is something we support.

While that was the framers' vision.

Congress initiates, the president prosecutes.

Our history has been very different.

So we've only declared war,

Congress has only declared war five times in the history of the United States.

The last time was World War II.

Presidents have initiated military action more than 120 times.

In some of those instances.

Congress has looped back and essentially said, we agree, we approve.

And sometimes the agreement or

approval wasn't so much formal as, well, we'll put money in the budget for it.

So kind of an informal acquiescence.

So in many of the instances Congress eventually did loop back and say okay.

But in a number of instances Congress never gave the President authority for

military action.

Most recently, President Obama committed US troops into a combat operation in Libya

in 2011 as part of a NATO mission and never sought the permission of Congress,

and was censured by the House of Representatives for doing so.

Even members who said, we would have voted yes actually, we liked your rationale.

Many still voted against the president to sanction the president for

not seeking congressional authorization.

So, the history does not match up with what the original intent was.

And the critique is a bi-partisan one.

Presidents of both parties have done this.

Over-reached.

And Congresses of both parties equally as important have abdicated responsibility.

It's maybe easy to understand how presidents would over-reach.

I'm an executive, I power, I want to do this.

But for a minute let me tell you about Congress.

Congress often doesn't like to cast a vote on something controversial.

So if a president initiates military action and then members of congress say,

well, this is going to be controversial.

Members of congress will weigh it and say, well, how is it going to work out.

And if it works out well, Mr. President, we're all with you.

And if it works out badly, who's idea was this?

And so if Congress can stay off the board and

not vote, that's often in their interest.

So this, this sloppiness that is not in accord with the original idea.

Is the fault of both the executive and legislative branches.

So what's the problem with this?

Why not allow ambiguity and sloppiness?

Two major problems.

First, ultimately, these are the most

important decision that we make as a government.

And one of the things that you have to do in making an important decision is

educate the public.

And how does the American public get educated about whether it's

worth using military force in Libya or to stop Assad from using chemical weapons.

Or, god forbid, that we would ever have to contemplate stopping Iran from

getting a nuclear weapon using military force?

How does the public develop an opinion about that?

By watching a, a tough debate.

By watching somebody propose military action and then somebody oppose it.

And then have that debate back and forth.

That's what, the congressional debate on this is critical in terms of

bringing the American public into the decision making process.

Even more importantly,

the original idea that Congress should be on board, was in my view,

designed to accomplish an underlying value that is of the utmost importance.

And that value is this.

We shouldn't ask men and women to risk their lives on the battlefield if there's

not a political consensus that says this mission is worth it.

And if you don't get Congress on board with respect to military action, and

there's any ambiguity at all between the executive and the legislature.

Then you're doing what I would think would be the most immoral thing you

could do in public life.

Asking those who are willing to serve, now volunteers.

Asking those who are willing to serve to risk their lives, risk their health,

when the political branches of government haven't bothered to do the work to

determine whether the mission is worthwhile.

We should never ask anybody to sacrifice in that way if we haven't done the work to

determine whether the mission is worthwhile.

So that's the problem.

That's the history.

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