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.
