The Politics of War Powers with Sarah Burns | BRI Scholar Talks

0:00 you need congress to start working as a

0:01 branch against

0:03 the presidency which is good

0:05 constitutionally it sounds like it’s bad

0:06 but it’s good

0:08 or uh you would need a president who

0:11 willingly puts more shackles

0:12 on his power or her power and

0:16 forces congress to take some of the

0:18 power that has been collected into the

0:20 executive branch

0:25 [Applause]

0:27 hi this is tony williams a senior fellow

0:29 with the bill of rights institute

0:30 and we want to welcome you to another

0:32 episode of scholar talks

0:34 today on this episode is our great

0:36 privilege

0:37 to introduce uh sarah burns who is going

0:41 to talk about her new book

0:43 the politics of war powers the theory

0:46 and history of presidential

0:48 unilateralism

0:50 so the guiding question for this

0:51 conversation is is going to be

0:53 how the president has really been

0:56 presidents have been able to decide when

0:59 the united states go to war

1:02 really in many many instances without

1:05 congress deliberating or even declaring

1:08 war

1:09 and and secondly what effect has this

1:12 had

1:13 on the constitutional principles of

1:16 separation

1:17 of powers and checks and balances so

1:20 those are the questions we’re going to

1:22 really focus on and try to answer today

1:24 by way of introductions sarah burns is

1:27 an associate

1:28 professor of political science at

1:30 rochester institute of technology

1:32 and she teaches at the ashbrook center’s

1:35 master’s

1:36 program for teachers sarah thank you

1:38 very much for joining me

1:40 thanks for having me excellent well uh

1:43 let’s

1:44 jump right in my my first question is is

1:47 really on laying kind of the

1:49 the theory and constitutionalism

1:52 of this topic and so i i want to ask you

1:56 what

1:56 is the proper constitutional balance

1:59 between

2:00 the congress on one hand and the

2:03 presidency on the other

2:05 with regard to war powers and how are

2:07 they supposed to function

2:10 yeah uh great question thanks it’s it

2:13 really goes back to

2:14 uh the way that james madison described

2:16 it in the federalist papers when he said

2:18 ambition is supposed to be counteracting

2:20 ambition and what he means by this when

2:22 he’s describing it in federalist 51

2:24 is that you need to have each branch

2:27 have an interest in what’s going on in

2:29 their branch and ensure that they’re

2:30 guarding their powers

2:32 so you see that the founders did a very

2:34 good job of distributing the war powers

2:36 across both of the branches

2:38 and what they were trying to do is

2:39 really lock them into a conversation

2:41 with each other

2:42 that can get contentious you know can be

2:46 a battle between the two of them

2:48 because congress is supposed to say you

2:50 know i don’t really know if we need to

2:52 use the military to solve this problem

2:54 and the president is then supposed to

2:55 say well this is the reason why you know

2:57 i’m trying to convince you why it is we

2:59 need the military

3:00 and in that conversation you know he and

3:03 perhaps eventually she

3:05 is supposed to be convincing congress

3:06 and supposed to be saying you know this

3:08 is i’m making a case for

3:09 war and congress is then supposed to say

3:12 that’s a good case

3:13 and you know we’ll give you the the

3:15 money and the troops that you need

3:17 and if he doesn’t make a good case or

3:19 congress is just not convinced

3:21 and then you don’t have war right so

3:23 that should be the real battle is or the

3:25 real

3:25 the balance is you have a battle between

3:28 the branches if they don’t agree

3:30 and consensus between the branches if

3:32 they do agree on the necessity

3:33 of a military operation yeah i love that

3:36 and that really supports the idea of

3:38 checks and balances right and i i love

3:40 the way you put it it’s a conversation

3:42 right it’s deliberation right

3:44 uh in in our system of self-government

3:46 these political branches

3:48 are supposed to to talk and and debate

3:51 and converse about policy and and the

3:54 law and then public good and and going

3:56 to war

3:57 is obviously one of the most important

3:58 things uh and jobs

4:00 that it does uh with the greatest impact

4:02 on on its

4:04 citizens and so uh yeah that’s a really

4:06 important dialogue to have

4:08 yeah and it’s also we see in the two

4:10 branches they have different

4:12 qualities and different competencies

4:14 right so congress is supposed to be slow

4:16 and deliberative

4:17 and kind of plotting and the presidency

4:19 conversely is supposed to be energetic

4:21 and quick

4:22 and you know kind of frenzied in

4:24 movement and

4:25 bringing those things together you get a

4:27 nice balance and so the checks and

4:29 balances

4:30 are true but it’s also the different

4:32 nature of the power in congress versus

4:34 the nature of the power in the executive

4:36 bringing them together into this

4:38 dialogue makes it much more likely that

4:39 you’re going to have

4:41 positive results positive policy good

4:44 policy where you

4:45 you know where you’re going with the

4:46 military and you know

4:48 what you’re going to do with it right

4:49 which is a really good way i think of

4:51 um deciding what to do in the realm of

4:54 war

4:54 right you don’t want to just say well go

4:56 ahead um

4:58 you know we’ll see if we win this war

4:59 and if we don’t you know what’s more

5:01 blood and treasure right that’s not how

5:03 we should be

5:04 developing policy right well your book

5:06 is just chock full of very very

5:08 interesting example so so let’s start

5:10 looking at some of those examples

5:12 and looking at the 19th century okay you

5:16 describe a few imbalances there

5:18 between the branches but by and large

5:22 you argue that the constitutional

5:24 balance of powers

5:25 uh really does function properly uh from

5:28 from the early republic up

5:29 up through the spanish-american war so

5:32 maybe we can just briefly talk about

5:34 that period

5:35 and and and why the powers were balanced

5:38 so well

5:39 yeah it’s a it’s a really good question

5:41 and it’s really important to to think of

5:43 the us not as this isolated nation

5:45 that wasn’t doing anything in the 19th

5:47 century and then all of a sudden in the

5:49 20th century

5:50 just exploded onto the international

5:52 stage in the 19th century we’re fighting

5:54 the british

5:54 the spanish to a certain extent the

5:56 french i mean we’re fighting the great

5:58 empires we’re fighting the mexicans

6:00 we’re doing all sorts of things in terms

6:02 of war besides the civil war

6:04 and that’s really shaping the way that

6:07 these branches were supposed to interact

6:10 and they actually did

6:10 right so we see that not only is it in

6:13 theory

6:14 that the pres that the you know branches

6:16 work together this way

6:17 we also see in practice they worked very

6:19 very well where the president

6:21 you know took his case to congress

6:24 explained to congress what it is that he

6:25 wanted to do

6:26 congress then thought about it right and

6:29 in most cases made the right decision

6:31 in the mexican-american war definitely

6:33 congress should have been like

6:34 what are you doing paul this is this is

6:36 a terrible idea

6:38 absolutely no we’re not giving you any

6:39 money we’re not giving you any troops

6:41 but i digress so president brings his

6:44 case to congress

6:45 congress thinks about it talks about it

6:47 you know says the president

6:49 this is what we can give you and we’re

6:51 off right then we have the war

6:53 and the president continuously goes back

6:55 to congress continues to make his case

6:57 to congress

6:58 congress continues to deliberate about

7:00 the case for war

7:01 and continues to support it or tries to

7:05 shift policy as needs be

7:08 okay uh and so the the unilateral

7:12 presidential exercise of war powers

7:15 really seems to become more problematic

7:18 uh during and after world war one with

7:21 with woodrow wilson

7:22 uh making claims to to spread democracy

7:25 and going to war

7:26 uh to make the world safer democracy uh

7:29 and and then after the war he tries to

7:31 establish a new world order

7:33 for uh with the league of nations to

7:35 enforce the peace and kind of

7:37 create this this lasting peace among all

7:40 the nations of the world so

7:41 so what is so problematic about uh world

7:44 war one

7:45 yeah it’s it’s a pivotal point obviously

7:49 it’s called the great war in britain

7:50 it’s you know one of these moments in

7:52 history where you actually see

7:54 the world really dropped into

7:57 horrible fighting that should be a

8:00 moment where we say

8:02 okay maybe as a human race

8:06 we can rise above or get past this

8:09 this horrible way of interacting with

8:10 each other that has been a part of human

8:12 nature

8:13 since the beginning of civilization

8:16 right

8:16 and so the problem with this idea and

8:18 the problem with wilson’s understanding

8:19 of this idea that we can make the world

8:21 safe for democracy

8:23 is that he thinks you can eradicate you

8:25 can get rid of this part of human nature

8:28 and by you know shaping the world in a

8:30 certain way and making everybody

8:32 democratic

8:33 we’ll suddenly live in this utopic world

8:36 of

8:36 democracies where we’re all just

8:38 friendly and kind to each other

8:40 and it’ll just be basically the us’s

8:42 relationship with britain

8:43 but writ large right like everyone will

8:45 kind of interact that way

8:46 and we’ll just have a little you know

8:48 kerfuffles every now and then

8:50 and so this is just a fundamental denial

8:53 of human nature right how it is that

8:55 people

8:55 interact with each other and the the

8:58 desire to kind of

9:01 pivot in this way and the the idea that

9:03 you can

9:04 eliminate human nature in this respect

9:06 is just

9:08 so hubristic right like this is just a

9:11 level of

9:12 ambition that that needs to be checked

9:15 right that needs to be brought back to

9:17 earth

9:17 brought back to reality that you know

9:20 you can you can do a lot of things to

9:21 try and stop

9:22 wars from breaking out and that’s a

9:24 really good idea and we should

9:25 definitely make those steps

9:27 but as horus said i think this is from

9:29 horus you can chase

9:31 nature out with a pitchfork but she

9:32 always comes back

9:34 so that’s the really big problem with

9:36 the wilsonian vision of the world is you

9:39 you can’t get rid of human nature you

9:40 can’t get rid of the war-like part of

9:42 human beings

9:43 you can only kind of try and contain it

9:45 and keep it

9:46 uh small as possible right and this

9:49 really continues uh during another

9:51 watershed moment with

9:53 fdr and and sort of the lead up to war

9:55 and then the actual fight in world war

9:57 ii and another moment for unilateralism

10:01 by the executive right and and so how

10:04 does

10:04 fdr can contribute to presidents

10:07 engaging in war without congressional

10:10 authorization yeah it’s a great question

10:12 and the

10:13 problem with fdr is you know you can

10:14 never leave him right he’s just this

10:16 pivotal

10:17 figure in american history he’s this

10:19 pivotal president

10:21 he’s dynamic he’s this powerful speaker

10:23 who just has a totally different

10:25 vision for how the us should run what

10:28 the us government should do

10:30 and he’s given power or gets power

10:33 at a time when there are not one but two

10:36 major crises right so first you have the

10:38 great depression

10:39 which is a once-in-a-lifetime economic

10:42 crisis

10:42 and then you have world war ii that in

10:45 theory should have been a once in a

10:46 lifetime war but you’re

10:47 somewhat on the heels of world war one

10:50 and so giving this incredibly impressive

10:54 politician power at a time when there

10:57 are such

10:58 an immense crises to meet you’re going

11:00 to have him

11:03 fill the role right expand dramatically

11:05 his own powers

11:06 in an effort to meet these crises and

11:10 constitutionally that makes sense right

11:11 you do actually want the presidency to

11:13 expand at a moment of crisis

11:16 uh perhaps not as much with an economic

11:18 crisis but definitely

11:19 in a crisis as large as world war ii you

11:22 want a powerful president

11:24 but after that you want it to come back

11:26 to earth he wanted to contract back down

11:29 but fdr as i say in the book

11:32 he kind of broke part of our democracy

11:35 in order to save it

11:37 and i think to me it’s debatable whether

11:39 that that was necessary right did he

11:41 have to

11:42 expand the presidency to the size that

11:44 he did

11:46 it’s like i said a point of debate but

11:49 he did expand the presidency and he was

11:51 to a certain extent given that

11:52 leash by congress and afterwards we just

11:56 see

11:57 it’s kind of like the floodgates that

11:58 opened or pandora’s box it opened to

12:00 just keep using different metaphors

12:02 and so once that had happened i think it

12:04 was really hard

12:06 for congress to to reconstrain or to to

12:10 put parameters back on presidential

12:12 power

12:13 after that point and it doesn’t

12:16 right uh and so the cold war um

12:20 becomes this this real ultimate turning

12:23 point uh as

12:24 as you described in the book in which

12:26 presidents go to war

12:27 based upon authority from from the un uh

12:30 from

12:31 from the new nato treaty uh from their

12:34 expanded understanding of executive

12:38 power especially with the help of their

12:39 lawyers which is an interesting thing

12:42 uh rather than rather than deliberating

12:44 with congress

12:45 uh and you know i talked about this with

12:48 my students for years when i was a

12:50 teacher and

12:50 we just seem to engage in all of these

12:53 wars during the cold war and yet never

12:55 declared war right we

12:56 we can rattle uh all of them off right

12:59 uh but you know korea and vietnam

13:02 probably stand out as the the most

13:05 significant wars that we engaged in

13:06 during the cold war

13:09 so so how what events were taken you

13:12 know

13:12 what’s taking place around the cold war

13:14 to expand this unilateralism and then

13:16 and then doesn’t the war powers

13:20 resolution help restore things or or is

13:23 it supposed to and it fails

13:24 can can you explain that a little bit as

13:26 well yeah yeah

13:28 great questions and this is um as you

13:30 say a turning point because what we see

13:32 with fdr

13:33 is fdr taking power from congress right

13:35 congress really trying hard

13:37 to restrain fdr really trying to keep

13:39 him out of or trying to keep the us

13:41 out of the war and once we get to

13:44 the the cold war once we get to truman

13:46 and then and then johnson we see this is

13:48 congress giving away its power

13:50 right this is congress is saying to the

13:51 president you’ve

13:53 figured this out right you you know what

13:55 you’re doing i guess

13:56 um we’re not going to to

14:00 question you before you start the

14:01 operation we’re not going to

14:04 do a lot of oversight while the

14:05 operations are continuing

14:08 we’re just going to kind of grumble

14:10 about it and say you know we don’t

14:11 really like what you’re doing in korea

14:13 or we don’t really like

14:14 you know how it’s going in vietnam

14:17 but instead of really um putting their

14:21 putting themselves into it actually

14:22 really standing up to the president and

14:24 saying you know we’re going to decide

14:25 whether you’re doing a good job

14:27 as 19th century congresses did

14:30 the 20th century or the cold war

14:32 congress has just kind of

14:34 stepped back and you know quietly said

14:37 to each other like should we do

14:38 something

14:38 like no we definitely don’t want to do

14:40 anything here and then you finally have

14:42 it come to a head as you say in with the

14:44 war powers resolution where it seems as

14:46 if congress is finally saying

14:48 all right you know nixon was the last

14:50 straw we have to do something now we

14:52 clearly have this runaway president

14:54 that uh schlesinger calls the imperial

14:56 presidency

14:58 and you know we’ve we’ve gotta we’ve

15:01 gotta

15:01 act right like the whole country is

15:03 calling out for us to act

15:04 and they really were so you’ve got this

15:07 public pressure for congress to act and

15:09 what they do is come up with the war

15:10 powers resolution and the first

15:12 part of the war powers resolution reads

15:14 essentially like

15:15 a reading of a plain reading of the

15:19 constitutional text

15:20 so if you look at the first part of the

15:22 war powers resolution

15:24 it’s exactly what the founders would

15:25 have suggested right so

15:27 presidents can’t go to war unless they

15:29 have a declaration an authorization for

15:32 from congress or they’re responding to

15:34 an attack

15:35 right every single founder would have

15:36 said check mark checkmark checkmark

15:38 that’s exactly what we were talking

15:39 about

15:40 that’s exactly what we wanted from the

15:41 presidency so go ahead

15:44 right and then this 1970s congress

15:48 thinks to itself well you know

15:51 there’s sometimes when presidents are

15:52 going to do smaller scale operations

15:55 so why don’t we account for that so then

15:57 they have this little door opening

15:58 moment where they’re like well if

16:00 presidents are going to do something

16:02 um by themselves unilaterally

16:05 we’re going to give them 60 to 90 days

16:07 and you’re like no

16:09 i’m sorry congress the entire point

16:12 of you know your actions here in this

16:14 war powers resolution

16:16 is to put the genie back in the bottle

16:18 like you don’t want

16:19 presidents doing things without your

16:21 permission and they’re still

16:23 able to respond to a sudden attack so

16:24 just stop there right that’s where

16:26 that’s where it should have ended uh but

16:29 instead they have this

16:30 permission slip essentially for the

16:32 presidency where they say

16:34 you’ve got 60 to 90 days so i tend to

16:36 refer to it as like the top gun version

16:39 of um of wars right where if it’s just a

16:42 few planes flying around

16:44 presidents are allowed to do it without

16:45 congressional sanction and congress just

16:47 kind of says

16:48 like okay do that and we don’t want to

16:50 be bothered with it

16:51 so the war powers resolution was

16:53 supposed to be a constraint

16:55 and actually acts as a permission slip

16:58 great fascinating so so then the cold

17:01 war ends

17:02 right but unilateralism doesn’t

17:05 okay uh and so during this post-cold war

17:10 period

17:10 uh and then leading into the war on

17:13 terror after 9 11

17:16 the presidents really just effectively

17:18 ignore congress

17:20 uh in either in what are what are wars

17:24 uh but then also you know increasingly

17:27 they appeal to humanitarian missions or

17:30 so-called humanitarian missions

17:32 and i think about the wars that that

17:33 i’ve experienced in my lifetime

17:35 that that you discuss and so you know

17:38 with the first gulf war

17:40 and in somalia uh kosovo and bosnia

17:44 and then of course afghanistan iraq and

17:47 the war on terror

17:49 uh and so how does this unilateralism

17:52 just continue to play out despite this

17:54 war powers

17:55 resolution yeah it’s a great question i

17:58 think one of those

17:59 moments in u.s history where

18:02 i i was looking at it and looking at it

18:04 for the book and where the cold war and

18:06 the imbalance there kind of felt

18:08 understandable to me when you get to the

18:10 90s and this sort of like

18:13 american exceptionalism you know end of

18:16 history democratic peace theory

18:18 writ large i kind of think to myself did

18:21 none of you

18:22 did none of you read anything from the

18:25 founders did none of you read

18:27 like anything from the cycles of history

18:29 and the fact that like

18:30 you know the hubristic are brought down

18:33 right

18:33 it always ends badly for them so you

18:36 don’t want to just go around the world

18:38 doing whatever it is that you please

18:39 because you think you’ve

18:41 unquote won the cold war because first

18:43 of all you know russia doesn’t agree

18:45 right with that reading of the end of

18:46 the cold war and

18:48 there’s going to be lots of places

18:49 internationally that do not welcome your

18:52 help as you

18:53 put it right so when you go in with

18:56 these humanitarian missions

18:58 sometimes you’re not only not welcome as

19:01 a as an actor but you’re also

19:03 potentially doing more harm so in

19:05 somalia for example

19:07 um many of the peacekeepers ended up

19:09 causing the

19:11 the civil strife there to continue or

19:13 perpetuate because people were using

19:15 uh food that was being provided by the

19:17 u.n to pay their soldiers so that they

19:19 could continue fighting

19:21 and so you know these kinds of mistakes

19:23 are i suppose understandable but this is

19:25 one of those moments where

19:26 if there was a balance between the the

19:28 branches

19:29 you would see congress potentially

19:31 saying to presidents you know

19:33 is it really a good idea for us to go

19:35 into somalia guns blazing

19:36 is it really a good idea for us to you

19:39 know

19:40 insert ourselves into the situation in

19:42 bosnia again guns blazing

19:44 and having more deliberation more time

19:47 to talk about these things

19:49 rather than just assuming you know

19:51 everyone’s going to want u.s help

19:52 everyone’s going to want the us military

19:54 to tell them what to do

19:55 it would have been a really good time to

19:59 to recheck and and put ourselves

20:02 you know where it is that we we should

20:04 probably be in terms of

20:07 the balance between the branches and in

20:08 terms of how we use u.s power

20:10 right because what you really want is

20:12 the usb a source for good

20:14 positive change in the world and if

20:16 you’re using us power kind of

20:18 willy-nilly and different operations all

20:20 over the place

20:22 that’s probably not going to go very

20:23 well right so you have this moment in

20:25 the 90s where the u.s could

20:27 be this source for positive good in the

20:29 world and instead because they

20:31 you know insert themselves in some

20:33 conflicts poorly

20:34 don’t insert themselves in other

20:36 conflicts like rwanda

20:38 then they don’t look like a very good

20:39 actor and on top of that congress this

20:41 entire time

20:43 isn’t saying to presidents no you have

20:45 to come to us you have to ask us

20:47 prior to doing these things and you have

20:49 to tell us why you have to do them

20:51 and why it’s beneficial for us interests

20:53 for international security

20:55 and presidents just aren’t doing this

20:57 they’re just deciding for themselves

20:59 so you know it’s not even all of the us

21:01 making these kinds of

21:02 selective decisions it’s just presidents

21:05 right essentially clinton making these

21:07 selective decisions and clinton was so

21:10 swept up in the idea of democratic peace

21:12 theory and the idea that if we make the

21:14 world democratic

21:16 then it’s going to be a more peaceful

21:18 world

21:19 that we see a sort of reiteration of the

21:21 wilsonian problem where it’s like

21:23 we’re so hubristic we’re so impressed

21:25 with our own system of government

21:27 that we’re imposing it on a whole bunch

21:29 of other people and they do not like it

21:32 they really um don’t see the us as a

21:35 source for

21:36 positive change in the world in the 90s

21:38 for the most part

21:40 right so you know so my final question

21:44 your book really provides compelling

21:47 and and ample evidence for this this

21:51 constitutional imbalance that that has

21:53 been going on for

21:54 you know um now uh over a century

21:58 uh over war powers uh and i i think i

22:01 detect uh

22:02 you know exasperation on both of our

22:04 parts for

22:06 this this real constitutional imbalance

22:08 and and what it means for an american

22:10 democracy what it means for for

22:12 american power in the world and views of

22:14 america from around the globe

22:16 uh there’s just a lot of troubling uh

22:19 aspects of

22:20 of this imbalance of separation powers

22:22 and checks and balances so

22:24 my question is what do you think the the

22:27 remedy

22:28 for restoring this balance uh with the

22:31 separation of powers with checks and

22:33 analysis but with constitutionalism

22:36 what is that going to be and and can we

22:38 get back to

22:41 that proper balance that madison and the

22:44 founders envisioned

22:46 yeah it’s a it’s a really good question

22:47 and you’re right i am exasperated and

22:49 i’m glad to have a

22:50 fellow exasperated interlocutor to talk

22:53 to

22:54 because it is very frustrating when you

22:56 see all the things that presidents have

22:58 consistently done

22:59 just to name a couple of recent examples

23:01 we see you know biden hitting a few

23:05 militia groups in syria and we see trump

23:09 uh assassinating a a member of the

23:12 iranian government

23:13 in when that member happened to be in in

23:15 iraq

23:16 and these are things that can spiral

23:19 into

23:20 if not world war iii some kind of great

23:23 power war

23:24 because if iran and the u.s went to

23:25 blows russia would get involved i

23:28 suspect

23:29 china would also get involved or maybe

23:31 sit it out and see what happens

23:33 but all the same it would be a major

23:35 crisis that you don’t want to see

23:37 and you don’t want in the hands of one

23:40 individual

23:42 you know just deciding how how the world

23:44 international security is going to

23:46 going to shake out so

23:50 you know i think to try and get back to

23:53 some kind of balance there’s a few

23:55 things so i i’ve mentioned several times

23:56 that i don’t think the problem really is

23:58 the presidency

23:59 or presidents themselves it’s very

24:01 understandable from

24:03 the constitutional perspective that

24:05 presidents are going to be ambitious

24:06 right the kind of person who decides to

24:08 run a country

24:10 is naturally going to be the kind of

24:12 person who

24:13 wants to expand his or her power and

24:15 wants to be viewed as a great president

24:17 right and so that’s perfectly

24:20 understandable what we need then is for

24:21 congress to

24:23 to really reassert itself and really

24:25 bring the president back

24:27 into balance with the with the congress

24:31 and you know how do you do this exactly

24:33 for one thing

24:34 i guess um a possible way forward would

24:38 be

24:38 a change in the leadership in congress

24:41 so

24:42 if you look at members who are currently

24:44 in power

24:45 so people like mitch mcconnell and nancy

24:47 pelosi you don’t see them

24:50 trying to find ways to reassert congress

24:52 so much as you see them

24:54 as trying to find ways to beat out the

24:56 other party

24:57 right so what you would need is people

25:01 like

25:01 mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi somehow

25:03 seeing that their

25:04 interest is to work together against the

25:07 presidency

25:08 right and that’s not something that

25:09 we’re seeing now but that’s the kind of

25:12 thing where if the branch had a loyalty

25:14 to itself and the branch really started

25:16 working together

25:17 um to counter the ambition of the

25:19 presidency

25:20 that could restore a balance i would

25:22 think

25:24 and so how would you get them to do that

25:26 so the

25:27 the hard answer to that is that it seems

25:30 like you have to convince voters

25:32 to vote for that and so you have to

25:34 convince voters that mitch mcconnell

25:36 should want to work with nancy pelosi

25:38 and vice versa

25:40 rather than nancy pelosi in this

25:42 instance working with biden and biden’s

25:44 administration or mitch mcconnell

25:45 working previously

25:47 with the trump administration

25:49 unfortunately voters are currently

25:50 convinced that they want republicans to

25:52 work together

25:53 against the democrats and vice versa

25:56 so you know i think

26:00 one would hope and i i just had to say

26:03 on a hopeful term one would hope that

26:06 people will start to see that the shirts

26:08 and skins

26:09 or like the jersey that you wear is not

26:10 the way to organize politics it should

26:12 be

26:13 that we have broad goals that we agree

26:15 on are good or positive for the country

26:18 instead of i just want to beat the other

26:20 guy right i don’t care what it is that

26:22 he’s

26:22 he’s voting for i just want him to lose

26:26 and like i feel like the fever has to

26:29 break like i feel like we’re at a moment

26:31 in

26:32 us history where you know we are kind of

26:35 frenzied we are kind of like

26:37 i don’t like the the other people on the

26:39 other side

26:40 and we’ve had moments where we’ve gotten

26:42 over that say for example post 911

26:45 there was much more of a sense of

26:46 camaraderie or a collective sense

26:48 of the american nation and interest

26:51 so maybe we can get back to that

26:54 maybe covid because of the fact that we

26:56 are all in this together

26:58 could be a moment like that where we

27:00 come together and realize

27:01 we have to work together we can’t work

27:03 against the other team

27:06 the other thing i would say is you have

27:08 to have

27:10 perhaps the greatest of statesmen in the

27:13 in the oval office because they would

27:14 willingly give up

27:16 a great deal of unilateral power and

27:19 willingly force congress by ushering

27:21 through legislation

27:22 willingly force congress to um bring

27:26 them back into balance

27:27 right so to sort of

27:30 to summarize you need congress to start

27:33 working as a branch

27:34 against the presidency which is good

27:36 constitutionally it sounds like it’s bad

27:38 but it’s good

27:40 or you would need a president who

27:42 willingly puts more shackles

27:44 on his power or her power and

27:48 forces congress to take some of the

27:50 power that has been collected into the

27:52 executive branch

27:56 all right sarah burns thank you for

27:58 joining us the book is the

27:59 politics of war powers the theory and

28:03 history

28:04 of presidential unilateralism really

28:07 a remarkable book one of those books

28:09 that you know

28:10 provides answers to some of those

28:13 questions you’ve just had in your mind

28:14 for years and years and years about the

28:16 american political system

28:18 and constitutional order and now they’re

28:20 answered so uh thank you very much for

28:22 uh your remarkable book and and for

28:24 coming to speak with

28:26 me today thanks so much tony it was

28:28 really enjoyable and i you know hope we

28:30 have

28:30 future conversations maybe at some point

28:33 in person

28:34 yes yeah that would be great thank you

28:36 thank you for joining us uh please be

28:38 sure to subscribe

28:39 to our youtube channel uh we put out new

28:42 material on us history and civics

28:45 every tuesday and thursday including

28:47 primary source close reads

28:49 scholar talks like this one and also

28:52 homework help

28:53 videos for students also please come

28:57 check us out on instagram and twitter

28:59 and facebook

29:00 other social media and join the

29:03 conversation and see the ways that you

29:05 can get involved with bri thank you

29:13 you