of congress to defend congress if congress does not want to defend congress orbit doesn't think it needsfend congress or doesn't think there is a separation of powers violation. we, the trade court decide issues related to trad treatment separation of powers issues that congress is more than capable of addressing if it so chooses. neither you private litigants nor wheat the trade court should second guess congress and step in and say we have the final say, why? because we say we do justice and marshall did because chief justice roberts said because justice barrett said. just the other week you don't think the order of the court is a final decision? neither did the framers this is how you work constitution's authors believe the government they establish it function is beyond debate chief justice roberts said the supreme court is a final say barrett says it has the final say. isn't that precious? the court is saying them all the power they want. but the constitution is much more complicated that and then that i discussed on the radio last week our law schools, law firms, prosecutors, judge

i am afraid that congress, the future of congress is difficult to assess.hey are constantly bickering with one another. and, as important as the representation is to the american people, i do not see the congress of the united states becoming relevant in regards to the general daily application of government to this country. your thoughts on that and, thank you. guest: thank you for the comment. i think a lot of people share your feelings. congress is too big and has too much bickering to steer a government. you should not underestimate it. as much as i told you earlier that congress is not the frontline decision-maker on these national security maker, congress is shaping the governments that regular feel -- that regular people feel every day all the time. even in the age when its productivity is challenged, and we are having a lot of difficulty forging bipartisan compromises, we need congress to ask. things will go badly if we just assume congress can only bicker. we have to pass spending laws and authorize our military and we have to raise the debt limit

no action from congress. what we are forgetting is that in the constitution, the purpose of the united states senate is to advise and consenting with the other branches of government, particularly the executive branch. we moved into imperial presidency, not just donald trump but with other presidents who have acted unilaterally and congress has conceded their power to the executive branch. which is the real concern. after all, it is congress. the house has to get the appropriations for any military action. so should they not be consulted? should they not have a briefing? and to say that the briefing is the only for republicans is further dividing the country when there is a war, we need to be as united as possible. this going back and forth with democrats, republicans, let's go back and remember the republicans who took us into wars george west bush. >> this is jj in california, republican like. >> think you have my call. we don't want to show. [inaudible] they only understand weakness. finally have a preside

is the member of congress. but the district voted for donald trump. 22 in every other district you get punished. when you compromise, you get primaried. when you compromise, it is a to compromise. and again, that's a big problem. i do want to give a out. by the way, we are long island have two democrats in congress. lord and tom suozzi, who have made a very concentrated effort to reach across the aisle and legislate with the republicans. andrew garbarino on the republican side as well has been very effective in terms of reaching out to work with democrats too. so it does exist with, frankly your encouragement and support. bipartisanship is not a misnomer. it's not it does not have to be an that has to disappear. it's rare. it's critical in terms of moving the country forward. that being said, i've got final wrap up question for you both. in our history, throughout our history, we've always had members of congress in times of crisis. but the country before the party margaret chase smith, the lady from, as she wa

congress disagrees. there has not been a critical mass of republicans to push back against the presidents of both parties on that. host: you said most if not all democrats are expected to vote for the bill. do they have a unified message when it comes to iran? guest: it is tough. some of them are criticizing the president and saying he did not seek authorization from congress and there does not appear to be a plan for going forward and they say the intelligence shows there was no imminent threat to the united states that required such a large-scale bombing in iran like we saw over the weekend. we will certainly mourn more cash we will certainly learn more from the senators today -- we will certainly learn more from the senators today during the classified briefings. there are some divergence. some are offering tacit praise for president for having done this because those strikes degraded iran's nuclear program so heavily. there are several iran hawks within the democratic party including those who oppose

and in theory, it makes complete sense that congress is a mess. congress is dysfunction. no, the only way to turn it around is change the people who, make it a dysfunctional mess. makes sense on the surface until you start looking at the actual effects. when you implement something that sounds so good and the reality that everything that you're trying to make better will actually be made worse, that if you speed up how how quickly people depart the chamber, you'll speed up a lot of the things that are wrong with the chamber, including polarization, who is powerful and who's not, that you'll delegate authority outside of congress where it should belong, even if they struggle to keep it to people who are unelected or serve in another branch of government. and so, depending on what you're to change your frustration. yes, it is an incredibly intuitive reform idea. but if you're about when i say term limits, especially now you're probably thinking about old people, right? that's a different reform that if you have a senate made up of 187 year olds freezing at the camera or dyi

boys who play important a part in the work of congress. if you are one of these page boys you see more of the intimate details of lawmaking than anyone other than congressman himself. but you would have to go to classes. you would study many subjects, history, government, mathematics. literature, yes. and anatomy. the page boys. karl that's dummy. oscar but classmates would be boys of high school age carefully selected from all over the united states where their ability courtesy and personality would receive one of the best education available in american schools and all of this in spite the fact that every day you would have a big to do often having work late into the night, you would study your own country and many other lands. but all your studies would borrowed the spirit and of the institution of which you are a part where our history making events are a daily routine. the congress of the united the days early at the capitol, the president of the senate, the vice president of the united states at his desk to study the program for the

of the vietnam war, and congress did know that and congress had passed some legislation at least appropriating funds for it and somewhat authorizing it during the johnson administration. but president nixon, congress knew about the war in vietnam obviously. there was a draft, 56,000 americans were killed in that war. but president nixon, without informing congress, extended the >> president nixon started bombing cambodia, it was called the secret bombing of cambodia, a new country that had not been covered by war authorizations. and so congress stepped up and acted and passed the war powers resolution of 1974, and that resolution, mr. president, did a number of things. it established some protocols for when the president initiates military action providing notice to congress so that there can't be a secret war, giving congress some ability once notice is provided to try to withdraw notice if it thinks that the war is ill advised. but the war powers resolution also did something else, it gave the power to even one member of congress, one senator or one house member, if a president initiates war

i am afraid that congress, the future of congress is difficult to assess.y are constantly bickering with one another. and, as important as the representation is to the american people, i do not see the congress of the united states becoming relevant in regards to the general daily application of government to this country. your thoughts on that and, thank you. guest: thank you for the comment. i think a lot of people share your feelings. congress is too big and has too much bickering to steer a government. you should not underestimate it. as much as i told you earlier that congress is not the frontline decision-maker on these national security maker, congress is shaping the governments that regular feel -- that regular people feel every day all the time. even in the age when its productivity is challenged, and we are having a lot of difficulty forging bipartisan compromises, we need congress to ask. things will go badly if we just assume congress can only bicker. we have to pass spending laws and authorize our military and we have to raise the debt limit or

follow the author of the book why congress -- welcome to the program. >> what is the role congress has?s? to make a formal war in congress has been comfortable limited action they guarantee by congress right away in a productive engagement in the so they take limited action give congress the ability to hold into account not really to say yes or no. >> does it fall under rational approval? >> the president claims the authority from article two of the constitution diplomacy make sure our interests are respected. the relationship between iran and the united states has to be taken into account and has cost americans any lives. and these authorities.ab s have done in somewhat similar situations. host: you talk a little bit about the history of it and we are seeing two separate tracks when it comes at efforts in congress to limit efforts in iran. the senate making this effort and the house, what do you make of these decisions to limit the president's power. guest: they are position taking as much as anything else. members say they want to -- he has the responsibility and things go wrong it i

congress hiding from the responsibility that was put on congress shoulders in 1787. i will be asking my colleagues to support my simple resolution as early as next week. no war without a vote of congress. i'll be asking my colleagues to support it and uphold the oath we've all taken to support the constitution that established that most unusual principle, most unique principle that is part of what makes this nation special. that mr. president, i yield the floor. tonight on c-span's q&a, university of texas at austin, history professor peniel joseph shares his book freedom season talks about the pivotal events of 1963 that impacted the civil rights movement in america. that year marked the centenary of lincoln's emancipation and proclamation, the assassinations of president kennedy and mississippi's civil rights activist medgar evers, and the bombing of the 16th street baptist church in birmingham, alabama, which killed four little girls in 1963. i think is the most pivotal year of the 1960s. it's the year that gives us both triumphs and tragedies, and it's really the

no war without a vote of congress. will be asking my colleagues to support it and uphold the oath we've all taken to support the constitution that established that most unusual principal. with that i yield the floor defense secretary pete hegseth joint chiefs of staff chair general dan kain will testify on the president's 2026 budget request. the defense departmentatest projections for forces, resources and pgrams to support military operations. they are also likely to face questions about the ongoing conflict between israel and iran. watch live coverage of the senate armed services committee hearing at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span three. c-span now, a free mobile app or online at c-span.org. ♪ c-span's "washington journal" a life form involving you to discuss the latest issues and government politics and public policy from washington d.c. to across the country wednesday morning talk about the future of iran's nuclear program with jail cable executive director of the arms control association axios politics reporter step

congress did.elcome the court's questions. >> you seem toe putting quite a bit of weight on the use of the word right. over think 20 times in the lipsky and the absence of the word right in this case. do you think right is absolutely necessary in order to deterne whether or not a right has been created under this provision? >> i think if congressan to be clear, right is the best word but we would take functional equivalents such as prile or entitlement or the traditional no person shall come only the fifth amendment. thiss a high bar, atypical and if the state is gng to be on clear notice which it has to be to know which contract it is agreeing to, he needs to be really clear. >> so how would you amend this statute to bclr about a right? >> there are a number of things ngress could have done. set it apart in a separate bill igs. it could have used rigs creating language such as a beneficiary has a right to designate her provider. they could have taken the qualificatnsf the provider away from the st

let see congress fix it.ntlemen there have been a handful of us and, over 5 million supporters in have been talking about this for 20 years. congress cannot fix itself. it is incapable of it. first about the republicans have a fair majority they can barely agree on any of it. secondly the democrats have never seen a budget that was not bloated out of control, massive debt date did not think was too small. so how do you fix this? you really can't. we have elections, the tolls that atolsonare going to they d? because they can't even this congress today did not create the situation it is in. it took decades of congresses and to blame donald trump look at the spending, look at the taxi, look at that debt. you've got people in their in their 70s and 80s they spent their whole life in congress. donald trump is going to be two term president and then he is gone that an ex-president comes in. how do we fix this? they don't really tell us how they athey're going to fix this because they can't. we can just like with th

does not only congress can declare war it's a bipartisan problem with congress' eating way too mucher to the executive branch. if you look at what jd nance is saying, it is pretty extreme. say the president can take action because it deals with nuclear proliferation proved that that argument means any u.s. president could strike russia, or china, or north korea without congressional approval and that is just insane. asserting congress' role in the constitution and again it's pretty clear only congress has the power to declare war. >> on the ague mf question on the war powers question, if you give someone a credit card they are going to use it. what has happened is congress gave the presidency, democrat presidents and republican presidents decades ago credit card but the bill has to be paid by the american people due to ss congress' responsibility now to step up and to take it back. because it has been used and abused for too long by too many different people. the difference here house democrats take that seriously are stepping up to do something about it. and in the absence of leade

the present that's not convenient convenient to the congress that the congress. .. the clerk: mr. kennedy, no. the clerk: mr. kennedy, no. the conflict in the middle east had the potential to draw in the united states of america. with missiles began striking tehran and tel aviv. the president of the united states signature bombast begin to telegraph the possibility that we would enter the fray. on countless american families were forced to consider whether their children will be the next to bear the burden and carried carry thesacrifices of another potentially endless war in the middle east. and it is so, with those families and service members in mind senator kaine introduce this resolution to ensure the present did not risk committing the united states yet another open ended conflict in the region without a debate in congress and a decision by congress as to whether the country should go down the dangerous road at that time many centers, myself included push for an intelligence briefing from the administration we had significant questions we need answered. had ira

congress needs to authorize a war against iran, this trump war against iran, we haven't, congress shouldulted with it, we were not, congress needs to nbe notified n advance. i filed a war powers resolution that will be brought to the floor for a vote this week. the united states should not be in an offensive war against iran without a vote of congress, the constitution is completely clear on it. and i am so disappointed that the president has acted so prematurely, the foreign minister of israel said friday night that its own bombing campaign had set the iranian nuclear program back quote at least two or three years closed quote. there was no urgency that suggested while diplomatic talks were under way that the u.s. should have taken this unilateral action by the president yesterday. >> the vice president was on another network earlier this morning, saying we're not at war with iran, we're at war with iran's nuclear program, a lot of legal parsing on the definition of the word "war" here. what do you make of that description. >> i think it's b.s. anybody hearing it would conclude the same

congress knew nothing about it. so these democrats that are complaining about congress not knowing, it was strictly for security reasons, as few as possible know about it. and i just wish these democrats would consider what obama did and approve of what trump did. thank you, ma'am. host: rose, what do you think of russell's comparison there? guest 2: yeah. i think the democrats are losing the thread here, right? i don't think this is a partisan issue, right? presidents of both parties have done this and have bombed countries without getting permission from congress. it does not mean it is a good thing to do, right? and even when you get permission from congress, it does not mean you don't make mistakes, but at least george w. bush took the time to go to congress and get the authorization, right? and i do think there is something to be said about having people on the record voting either in favor of the war or against a war, right? nobody in congress has had to go on the record about this. and all the people who vote

and the congress that is out of the. >> and people are. just here without your representatives an insult to emily's at home superset of american families feel they can provide the basic of what we are debating in the bill that was to take away healthcare for 16 million americans and take away the programs and veterans benefits. the audacity up-and-coming a lot and saying on top of all that you feel you are not entitled around national security and profound decisions whether to go to war or not. of american veterans of those in their families. and cochair, making. >> thank you so much and grateful for leadership in my colleagues part of this task force. and i represent the state of new hampshire congress got a lot of patriots right here on this podium and believed deeply in our mission and our goal and joined the military at age 18 in the united states navy and zodiac. an intelligence officer in the navy reserve and learned of the navy united states of america determined enemies across the world including and iran and i saw firsthand how se

and congress wants, impeachment of the president. are the democrats serious or badgering, marco rubio, pete hegseth, general caine. i would like to hear a thank you and how bad was the damage assessment. [indiscernible chatter] >> this is a briefing for the senators to ask questions. [indiscernible] >> one thing, yesterday the israeli ambassador briefed us at lunch, taking out the iranian nuclear capacity is a lot to do with taking out the facilities and also a lot of taking out the personnel, the scientists, the generals, how many of them were killed and also as the ambassador, the archives. there is a whole host of facilities and relating to the direct bombing and a lot to do with the capacity to create and deliver a nuclear bomb. those are the kinds of questions i am going to be asking, but this shouldn't be what it was with general suleimani. it was one of the embarrassing thing. every democrat was going after secretary pompeo saying you didn't have the authority and evidence. suleimani deserved to be dead and the world is a bett

when they do not, congress must act. h.r. 2056 ensures that the district of columbia cooperates with federal immigration agencies including i.c.e., to protect our citizens, and nullifies priorities by the district to make itself a sanctuary city. i want to mention mr. higgins of louisiana for his work on this important topic. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. lynch: good afternoon, mr. speaker. i strongly oppose h.r. 2056 which would effectively nullify laws, policy, and practices duly enacted by the district of columbia. because i strongly support the ability of the residents of the district of columbia to govern themselves on local matters. this is one of two d.c. bills that the house is considering this week to demonize immigrants. let's be clear, the district of columbia is in full compliance with federal law. it does not obstruct i.c.e. from carrying out its duties. d.c., like m

that as members of congress we are here representing our districts. and the voice of the american people. so when we have a president and an administration and now a republican party in congress that has decided the american people are not entitled to know anything, it's a trust us, we are doing what we're doing, you are just here to pay the taxes while we debate these things interimly without your representatives involved. that is an outrage and an insult to families who at this time, were 60 -- where 60% of american families are feeling like they can't depend on the basics while we have a majority that wants to take away health care from 16 million american, wants to take away food program, strip funding from veteran's benefits, the audacity of them coming forward and saying, on top of all that, we feel that you are not entitled to the basic information around our national security and such profound decisions about whether to go to war. this is far beyond a briefing and what diit will be held. this is the fact that we have been demanding information

they thought congress should be involved in it. and i said to president obama you need to bring this to congress. and guess what? a lot of members of this body said the same thing. seven members in the senate right now were in the house in 2013, and i have a letter that many of them wrote. six members who are currently republican members of the senate signed this. august 28, 2013. dear mr. president, we strongly urge you to you consult and receive authorization from congress before ordering the use of u.s. military force in syria. your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the constitution and the war powers resolution of 1973. we were in a recess then. it was august. but they said if you deem that military action is necessary, congress can reconvene at your request. we stand ready to come back into session. consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions regarding u.s. involvement in the quickly escalating syrian conflict. six republican members signed that in 2013, but now they seem to have a different standard

sumi: what about the role of congress?resolution of 1973 were wires the resident to notify congress within 48 hours of military action and provide a classified briefing. neither happened. if the administration has firm proof iran was an imminent threat, why not immediately brief congress? rep. kiggans: so, i know that this was more of a stealthy mission. when we went in elections, wheezing -- we receive a top-secret vetting -- clearance with very little vetting. i was in the navy. there was quite a vetting process. there are a lot of members of congress. i don't feel comfortable with everyone having inside knowledge of omission mission that is supposed to be stealthy and take our enemy by surprise. president trump acted within his constitutional right to act unilaterally and we know that article two of the constitution guarantees that right. we have seen president obama 2011 and 2014 and president biden when he dropped bombs in yemen. president trump acted within his constitutional rights. sumi: you don't trust all of your

, he dispersed this congress, the military commissar krivashein announced the dissolution of the congress, the vote on the resolution was already taking place at the time of the dispersal, therefore, to the processes state construction never began, but the main thing... the truth went to the villages, the tlumachytsya went to its groove, and the belarusian national committee was created, bel-natsk, pasney, menavіta belnatsk see everything soft and non-magchy, as the belarusian dyarzhauna has learned on the savetskaya basis. yevsey kanchar, the organizer of the all-belarusian congress , met with stalin and lenin after the dispersal. the chairman of the council of people's commissars, having learned about the events in minsk, said: comrade. the business started with the bssr, continue. despite the fact that both lenin and stalin demanded the convocation of a second congress so that it could complete its logical work, but at the same time, i remind you, peace negotiations were taking place between soviet russia and, therefore, kaiser's germany and its allies in brest-litovsk. for soviet russ

that involved in running the united states congress. the ability to try to convince members of congress on both sides of the aisle that it was justified action and ultimately convinced people and that will begin tomorrow and we will see what happens from there. there is no evidence that i've seen to justify military strike that took place in the absence of securing congressional approval. >>. [inaudible question] >> i think what is on the tool that's on the table right now is to continue to demand that the administration presents itself for the united states congress. why this step has been taken. step two is for the war powers resolution whether that's what's already been introduced. those need to be debated on the house floor. all all don't i don't like this is a dangerous moment we are in and we've got to get through what's in front of us. the trump administration have the responsibility to come congress which we have no evidence to justify its offensive strike in iran and we don't know how effective the strike has been. it's been to

, for the committee and then for congress? how do we get to -- >> in the short run the nation is to accomplish as i noted president trump's goals for digital assets which were not phrased in the same way but were shared by president biden which is this is a regulatory gap that is holdingat america back and seeing as lose developers, company founders of the markets. and so for me in the short run i want to honor the president's request of us from his first crypto digital asset roundtable several months ago where he wants to have both a stablecoin payment stablecoin bill antimarketru structure built on his desk before the august recess. i'm devoting all of my resources in the short run for navigating with the best most effective way to do that is. generally you will see the committee with that basis in fermentation and also how lighting applications and operating system what palace that holds an artificial intelligence and a tokenization and business strategy lower cost and brought delivered a better mix of services was terrific

congress it now and said people in congress want to get up on tv or the front halls of congress and sayant to take responsibility for supporting the president trying to stop them. instead what they do is they do continue to fund all of these weapons systems. all of these deployments that made i think these important strikes last night possible. but they do not undertake a political accountability or responsibility. would rather have the president go out on a limb without their support and if it turns out badly they can say we did not do anything we washed our hands of it. if that goes well they can say we actually did fund the troops the whole time. mark: you made a great points of bernie sanders is out there screaming like the rabbit marxist that he is part aoc is out there issuing videos on nothingness. and they are saying the president violated the constitution and the war powers act. is it another reason i don't use the power of the purse is they don't have the votes? they do not have the votes to get what they want until they can beat their chest. let's go to the declaration of war

residents have no voting representation in congress and congress has the ultimate say on local d.c. matters. the council has 13 members. if d.c. residents do not le how the members vote, residents canotee them out offfice or pass a ballot measure. that is called democracy. congress has 535 voting members, none are elected by d.c. residents. if d.c. residents do not like how the members vote on local d.c. matters, residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. that is the antithesis of democracacy. the substance of this bill is irrelevant. since there is never in any jurisdiction for congress to legislate on local d.c. matters. however, i will briefly discuss it. d.c. allows noncitizens to vote in local elections because it believes that all adult resident december serve a say in their local government. while d.c. law noncititizens to vote only in local elections, 40 states and the federal government allow noncitizens to vote in local, state, territorial, and federal elections at various points, including the founding. the federal government f first prohibited non