Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
This podcast uses government documents to illuminate the workings of the American government, and offer context around the effects of government agencies in your everyday life.
N. Rodgers: Hey, Aughie.
J. Aughenbaugh: Good morning, Nia. How are you?
N. Rodgers: I have a little bit of a cold. I have a question for you. But how are you? First, before I start grilling you, are you feeling good, because I'd like to change that?
J. Aughenbaugh: We're not going to ease into the episode like we usually do. No chit chat, no fun and frivolity instead, it's just like, so I got a bunch of questions for you. Hey, I'm fine. I've had my coffee. We are recording this a day after a rather typical day, early spring day in Richmond, Virginia.
N. Rodgers: This is why I have a cold, because it was 80 on Wednesday, and then yesterday it started.
J. Aughenbaugh: We started off in the upper 70s, and within two hours, we're getting a thunderstorm, which is characteristic of the summers here.
N. Rodgers: Two hours after that we got snow.
J. Aughenbaugh: We got snow. When you wake up this morning here in Richmond, Virginia, there is frost and snow on the ground, and I'm just glad.
N. Rodgers: On the grass, but at least it's not on the roads. Thank goodness.
J. Aughenbaugh: Thank goodness. But anyways, I'm feeling good.
N. Rodgers: Then I want to hit you with a question.
J. Aughenbaugh: Sure.
N. Rodgers: Did Donald Trump take us to war?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Is that a thing? Let me back up and ask it in a different way because it's really seriously.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Does the Constitution give the president the right to go to war?
J. Aughenbaugh: Technically, the answer is no. Listeners, you've heard me say this on this podcast. I know Nia is tired of hearing me say this. There is the constant [inaudible].
N. Rodgers: I'm never tired of hearing you say anything.
J. Aughenbaugh: When we're done recording, you're going to hit me up for something. What favor do you want?
N. Rodgers: I got another episode I want to record.
J. Aughenbaugh: You have the constitution as written, and then you have the constitution in practice. In writing, the answer to your question is no. The only body of the US federal government that can take the nation into war is the United States Congress. Why? Because in Article 1, it clearly says, Congress has the authority to declare war.
N. Rodgers: Did anybody mention that to Kennedy or Johnson or Nixon or Carter or Reagan? See where I'm going with that?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Every one of them, since Bright FDR has been all up in the grill of, hey, I'm going to start some stuff.
J. Aughenbaugh: This is where it gets complicated because, on one hand, Congress has the authority to declare war. On the other hand, in Article 2 of the Constitution, which covers the Office of the President, it says that the president is the Commander-in-Chief.
N. Rodgers: Those two things seem oppositely.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes, they seem to be in conflict, particularly if you have a rather strict conception of separation of powers.
N. Rodgers: Is he just supposed to wait for them to pull the trigger and then he steps in and leads? Is that the theory?
J. Aughenbaugh: If you have a strict interpretation of the US Constitution, the theory is Congress says, "We're at war." Now, President, you go and have us conduct wars [inaudible].
N. Rodgers: Lead it. We're having a war, and you're in charge.
J. Aughenbaugh: You're in charge.
N. Rodgers: Thanks. That is such a typical committee behavior, don't you think?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: When committee says, "Hey, Aughenbaugh, we've decided you're going to teach," you're like, "Thanks."
J. Aughenbaugh: Listeners, I know Nia, and I have shared what it's like to work at a public university. There is a rule of thumb in public universities. If you don't show up to a departmental or committee meeting.
N. Rodgers: You're doing the next thing, whatever it is.
J. Aughenbaugh: You're doing the next thing.
N. Rodgers: Aughenbaugh, we elected you to do the open houses this month because you weren't at the meeting.
J. Aughenbaugh: Rogers, you didn't show up at the library's last departmental meeting. Now you're going to go ahead and chair all of the committees for the next 12 months.
N. Rodgers: What? That's how it's written: the Congress will declare it, and then they will say to the president, "Hey, guess what you get to do." The president will be like, thanks, I didn't get you anything. Then off we go. But that is not how it has worked in practice in modern American history, meaning since World War II
J. Aughenbaugh: In fact, I would argue you could go back as far as President Lincoln during the Civil War. There are a series of Supreme Court cases where Lincoln's behavior at the beginning of the Civil War were challenged because he had not yet received from Congress a declaration of war. Lincoln was just like, "But wait a minute, here, the Southern States seceded from the Union. That can't be a good thing, so I had to step in and do some stuff."
N. Rodgers: Dang, if you wait for Congress to do stuff, holy cow. The slow-moving molasses legislative branch. I don't know how reactionary they would be, which I guess is a good thing in some ways, but I don't know.
J. Aughenbaugh: Again, this is part of the debate. Should we not have the two political branches of government consult with one another before we take such a dramatic foreign policy step as going to war? On the other hand, Nia, as you pointed out, if you wait for Congress to go ahead and decide to do stuff, well, hey, good luck at getting it done. [inaudible]
N. Rodgers: Especially as partisan as they are now. They're out of town half the time. You call over there, and nobody's around.
J. Aughenbaugh: Think about this. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Congress was on holiday.
N. Rodgers: It was December 4th or December 6th? Early December.
J. Aughenbaugh: December 6th, 1941.
N. Rodgers: A day which shall live in infamy, and also which the Congress would be at home having Christmas break.
J. Aughenbaugh: Roosevelt actually had to order Congress to return to Washington, DC.
N. Rodgers: He kicked over the "I can call you into session" thing.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. There were some members of Congress. Remember, listeners, Congress reflected the American will at that time quite nicely because most Americans were against getting involved in World War II. Many members of Congress represented that view. They were isolationists. There were some members of Congress, particularly out West, who were like, I don't want to return to Washington, DC. I finally made it home. I wasn't planning on returning until January.
N. Rodgers: By the way, we both had the date wrong; it's December 7th. So much for us being historians. But he has to get them all back.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: You have to get enough of a quorum in.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: You declare a war, and to get that going, while that takes a while for it to happen, what's the president supposed to be doing? Because if he's seen as not doing anything, then there's an appearance of weakness.
J. Aughenbaugh: Weakness. That's right.
N. Rodgers: FDR is not wanting an appearance of weakness because he doesn't want Japan to think we're going to be able to walk all over the United States. That's a no-go.
J. Aughenbaugh: In part, the reason why it's so complicated is because we do divide the work of the federal government into three different branches. You've mentioned the United States Congress. Historically, Congress has deferred to presidents in regards to how to respond to foreign affairs crises. Yes, Nia.
N. Rodgers: That's another question, which I raised my hand. That's why Aughie said yes because he automatically responds to students' hands going up, yes. You have a question. If the president never declares it a war, I don't know if we called it a police action or if we called it something else. Could the president do that without congressional approval?
J. Aughenbaugh: In some cases, that's what presidents have argued. Neither Kennedy or Lyndon Baines Johnson got a declaration of war from Congress to get involved in Vietnam. What LBJ did get from Congress is the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution because American ships and personnel were fired upon in the Gulf of Tonkin, which is in Southeast Asia. He used that as a justification for asking Congress for the approval to send more troops and more American military personnel into Vietnam. But it was never a declaration of war. Yes, you raised your hand.
N. Rodgers: I have a question. I told you I had a bunch of questions. Let us just say, for the sake of argument, the president does something like snatches the leader of another country up and takes them somewhere; one could argue that's not technically war. One could argue that's just rude, but it's not necessarily war. But let us say that the president fires upon another country, like, I don't know, Iran, in this instance. If the president's party does not say to the president, "Hey, don't be doing that, " then isn't that essentially giving permission to have a war? Isn't silence agreement in this instance? I would imagine wouldn't Congress have to be oppositional in order to stop the president from doing something; they'd have to say, "Hey, no." Would presidents even do it at that point if they thought that the opposition was going to raise significant grumblations and try to stop them?
J. Aughenbaugh: That's all true. In the current situation, Trump had to know that there wasn't going to be an overwhelming negative response in the United States Congress to him lobbing missiles and other air attacks in Iran because the Congress is controlled by the Republican Party. However, Congress, in 1973, passed the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution was designed to go ahead and rein in what effectively Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon did in Vietnam, which is escalate the US involvement in "non-war."
N. Rodgers: An extended. You're talking about 10 years, 12 years, here. That thing went on and on unlike more modern. I don't know, Afghanistan went on that long.
J. Aughenbaugh: But Afghanistan was part of the global war on terrorism, and the Bush 43 administration got what from Congress?
N. Rodgers: Permission.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes, the infamous authorized use of military force, which was not a declaration of war, because according to Bush 43, he didn't need one because he was responding to a terrorist attack.
N. Rodgers: Which is interesting logic.
J. Aughenbaugh: According to international law norms, unless another sovereign nation-state declares war against you or engages in war-like actions, you can't declare war on it. With the 9/11 attacks, was it another nation-state that fired upon [inaudible].
N. Rodgers: There were some debate about were they Saudi nationals? A lot of them were Saudi nationals, but were they acting for the government of Saudi Arabia? Unlikely. They were not. They were acting in more of a personal/religious point of view
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. According to Bush 43, he didn't need a declaration of war from Congress.
N. Rodgers: He also declared war on an idea instead of a country.
J. Aughenbaugh: Again, that's part of the difficulty with, for instance, most of the Cold War. You could go ahead and say that it was the Soviet Union. But it was the Soviet Union, the Chinese, and communism.
J. Aughenbaugh: Right.
N. Rodgers: Just like the war on drugs, it's not technically a war in the sense that you've declared war on Colombia, or Bolivia, or wherever. You're declaring it against basically cartels.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: It gets pretty complicated, the idea of war.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's the reason why when I get asked the question, can a president do what you described at the beginning of this podcast? I'm like, "It's complicated." Because even with the War Powers resolution, its key provisions require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action, and forbids armed forces from remaining in that action for more than 60 days. But even then, you get a 30 day withdrawal period. Effectively, a president, even with the War Powers, resolution has three months.
N. Rodgers: The War Powers resolution almost seems to concede the power of starting a war to the president.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: It's almost changing the Constitution without an amendment.
J. Aughenbaugh: That was part of the debate of the War Powers resolution. Members of Congress were like, "Hey, wait a minute, here. This could be perceived by presidents as us giving up our war declaration authority." The way Congress went ahead and worked around in terms of verbiage is commit armed forces to military action. It never says war. Declaring war is still reserved by Congress per the Constitution. The problem here is is in the implementation.
N. Rodgers: As President Rogers, I can drop a bunch of bombs on another country and say, "I wasn't having a war. I was just feeling my oats." I was just throwing some bombs around to see what would happen.
J. Aughenbaugh: Let's just say, for instance, because we frequently use this nation as an example, simply because we never think we would ever do this to this nation. Let's say, for instance, Nia, you're president of the United States, and all of a sudden, the Canadian government decides to stop anything.
N. Rodgers: The flow of maple syrup south.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: No, you didn't. I will not be having pancakes without maple syrup, people. This is not happening.
J. Aughenbaugh: Because our states up in the New England area just can't produce enough maple syrup for all the pancakes that Americans like to consume. You're concerned about this. You think that it violates a number of trade agreements. To show the Canadians you mean business, you send in a bunch of marines backed up by some bombs from the Air Force, just to go ahead and say, we mean business. But it's not war. We just want the Canadians to honor trade agreements, so the flow of syrup for our pancakes is not encumbered. Now, that seems to be implausible, but let's work with me here. According to the War Powers resolution, you can do this for 60 days.
N. Rodgers: Then take another 30 days withdrawing my marines.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Walking them back to the border.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's right.
N. Rodgers: To let Canada know that the threat is real.
J. Aughenbaugh: Real.
N. Rodgers: Without violating this War Powers Act.
J. Aughenbaugh: Let's be very clear about this. One, Congress has never invoked the War Powers resolution to rein in any president.
N. Rodgers: Well, if presidents are smart, they would wait till the Congress is controlled by, well, their party.
J. Aughenbaugh: But even when they're not, the problem is every single president since Nixon, who was president when the War Powers resolution was passed by Congress, he vetoed the resolution and the Congress overrode his veto. Every president since Nixon has issued a memo saying that the War Powers resolution more than likely violates the US Constitution, particularly the president's Commander in chief authority. Two, Congress has never invoked the War Powers resolution. Never.
N. Rodgers: It's an empty threat. It's an empty threat if you say you can do something, but you never do.
J. Aughenbaugh: Third, and this is where we pivot to the Supreme Court. Most constitutional law scholars concur that the War Powers resolution would seemingly contradict a whole host of Supreme Court rulings that have said that the president is the sole organ of US foreign policy.
N. Rodgers: War falls under foreign policy.
J. Aughenbaugh: Foreign policy because it is a tool of foreign policy.
N. Rodgers: Unless you commit internal war.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: In which it's a separate issue, but yeah.
J. Aughenbaugh: As our scholars who appeared on the podcast a couple years ago, Twig, Newman, and Saladino, they all went ahead and mentioned that war, historically, is a tool of a nation's foreign policy. It's a pretty dramatic tool.
N. Rodgers: It's a very heavy handed tool.
J. Aughenbaugh: It's a sledgehammer, not a skeleton.
N. Rodgers: But it's been known to work.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's also part of the problem here, folks. It's difficult to answer Nia's question that starts off this podcast episode simply because the Supreme Court historically has said one, unless Congress has problems with how the president is conducting foreign policy, we're not going to get involved because we believe that going to war and the duration of war in the nation's foreign policy is a political question that should be decided by the political branches.
N. Rodgers: The key is they have said, we're out of it. This is not a judicial question unless you're asking questions like, Bush and Ashcroft and all those guys, didn't they have several cases brought against them for how they were conducting behavior? But that's different than the war.
J. Aughenbaugh: Did the Bush 43 administration have the authority to fight a global war on terrorism? The Supreme Court has said in a number of cases, yes. How you go about it, we can get involved in those details.
N. Rodgers: They can get involved in how long can you hold somebody? How long can you keep them in? Where can you keep them? Where is their court? Is their court a military court or a regular judicial court, civilian court? They didn't take on the question of whether you could fight a war on terrorism because they were like, that is a political question. We're not the political branch because we're unelected.
J. Aughenbaugh: We're out of here.
N. Rodgers: The political stuff is not up to us. Don't bring it over here because we're not going to talk about it.
J. Aughenbaugh: Now, as the Supreme Court received criticism for not using their authority of judicial review in these types of disputes, sure. There doesn't seem to be a lot of checking and balancing going on when the Supreme Court basically goes ahead and says.
N. Rodgers: That seems like a political problem.
J. Aughenbaugh: We out of here.
N. Rodgers: See you, wouldn't want to be you. Also, I personally, I wish that they had weighed in on the drone policy of taking out American citizens in other countries without due process because that to me, seems like a due process question. I wish they had taken that on. They have not taken that on. But that is a question that could be asked legitimately. Shouldn't the court be limiting the president's ability to do certain things? Because that drone memo scares a snot out of me. The idea that you can just be killed from the skies by the president because he thinks you're aiding without any trial, which is just terrifying.
J. Aughenbaugh: Listeners, what he is referencing is during the President Obama's administration, it came to light that the Obama administration was using drones to target terrorists overseas. Some of these so called terrorists were US citizens who had not renounced their citizenship, but the Obama administration had concluded that they were actively working with, cooperating with terrorists against the United States.
N. Rodgers: That's the key. The Obama administration concluded, not a court concluded that. Because if court, even if a FISA court, it's going to come out for the American government most of the time court had said. You have some evidence.. There's been some due process here of some kind. You're not just saying that guy. I think it's that guy, which is I don't know. The people who say, "Well, we should have trusted Obama's administration to know who was a criminal and who wasn't," are some of the same people who would say, "I don't trust Donald Trump's administration to know who's a criminal and who's not." I'm like, if it applies to Donald Trump, it applies to President Obama and vice versa. If you're okay with President Obama being able to say, "I have enough intel that I can tell that person is a bad person and we're going to do something drastic like take their life," then you have to give the same grace to the next president that comes along. That's how that. Otherwise, you're what's known as a hypocrite. I'm hypocritical on plenty of things. Please don't think I'm saying I'm not hypocritical because I think all humans are. But I think that there are some real scary things that happen when presidents say, "I'm going to do something unchecked." I'm just not going to be held to account for it.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's what's problematic for me in regards to the Obama administration issuing a memo basically saying that they can do whatever, and use drones to kill US citizens without due process. Heck, without even consulting Congress.
N. Rodgers: Right. You just ask a bunch of people and they go, "It looks bad to me" Then at least you've done something like due process.
J. Aughenbaugh: But it's also what troubles me about the Trump administration deciding to bomb the crap out of the Iranians. Yes. The Iranians, I think it's been clearly established, have been developing their nuclear enrichment program.
N. Rodgers: They finance a bunch of truly obnoxious people in the world.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah. But we've known this for years. What is it that they've done recently. Because if the Trump administration attacked the Iranians because they recently suppressed and killed a whole bunch of their citizens who were protesting living conditions in that country. Well, if that's the new standard, we're going to go ahead and attack other nations for suppressing and killing their citizens who want to protest living conditions, then, state that publicly, get by in from the United States Congress and the public, then go ahead and do it. But this whole, I'm just going to unilaterally decide to do this because I'm the man. I'm POTUS. Again, I'm a firm believer in checks and balances. Even if that means the government moves and acts more slowly.
N. Rodgers: Theoretically, more deliberatively. Theoretically, when you slow down a little bit, you get a chance for people to go, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Have we thought about this consequence?" Have we thought about this consequence?
J. Aughenbaugh: That's what troubled me about the Obama administration claiming in the infamous drone memo that it can unilaterally do this. It's what troubled me about the global war on terrorism. Once the Bush administration got the authorized use of military force, I was just like, "All bets are off."
N. Rodgers: That's a big can of worms, terrorism. That can be anywhere. You've expanded this into this huge.
J. Aughenbaugh: I didn't even like the fact that, for instance, Clinton sent troops into Haiti. I didn't like the fact that Obama went ahead and ushered in regime change in Libya without getting Congress' approval. I wasn't necessarily a big fan of the Persian Gulf War because Bush 41 said on in a press conference to the American public, "I don't need Congress' approval. I would like for them to go ahead and sign off on me to save the Kuwaitis and the Kuwaiti government." Wait a minute. Since when are we concerned about the Kuwaitis and the Kuwaiti government?
N. Rodgers: What we were concerned about was Kuwaiti oil.
J. Aughenbaugh: Great.
N. Rodgers: I don't like the dressing up part, either. If you want somebody's oil, just say I want their oil. I want access to those.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah, there's an an expression Nia, you and I both heard because we grew up in rural America. Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining.
N. Rodgers: If you have motives, just be straightforward about your motives, but I don't know that presidents are ever straightforward about their motives. I think if I'm correct in summing up the answer, the answer is no but.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: No, he can't technically do this, but one, he has already done this. I think some presidents act out of the it is easier to ask forgiveness and permission train thought that 12-year-olds act under.
J. Aughenbaugh: Let's be very clear. You want to talk about it.
N. Rodgers: That's true. Everybody acts that way sometimes.
J. Aughenbaugh: Well, hey, there's a whole bunch of our listeners who are like, "Now Aughenbaugh is hypocritical." Because I basically have led my life under that mantra, Nia. It's better to ask for forgiveness to ask for permission. I know.
N. Rodgers: As soon as I said, I'm like, not just 12-year-olds, not just 12-year-olds. It's everybody.
J. Aughenbaugh: I'm recording the podcast episode with a person.
N. Rodgers: Who's also done it. I've also done it. Yeah. But what we do know is that it is unlikely that this Congress will invoke the War Powers resolution. It is unlikely that that will happen. Because they're of the same party as the president and because they're of like mind. Actually, this action has been popular in polls.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah.
N. Rodgers: It's being received by the American public, apparently.
J. Aughenbaugh: Well, it's fascinating about how this was perceived.
N. Rodgers: I wish we had done it sooner, so maybe not 50,000 people would have died if what we were trying to do was prevent death in Iran.
J. Aughenbaugh: Well, to me, what's fascinating is how this is being perceived in the polls. On one hand, going after the Iranians is popular, in part because there's a whole bunch of older Americans who remember the regime change in Iran in 1979.
N. Rodgers: The hostage situation. They don't really like the fact that it's a theocracy. There's a whole subset of folks who feel those things.
J. Aughenbaugh: On the other hand, this is playing out? Because now oil from the Middle East has basically come to a stop, because the Iranians are making it extremely difficult for any ship, to get out of the Middle East with our precious black gold.
N. Rodgers: Straits of Hormuz.
J. Aughenbaugh: Now, gas prices are rising.
N. Rodgers: In fairness to Saudi Arabia, Aramco is trying really hard to open their pipeline to the other side of the country so they can get oil out. They're trying to hustle, but it's going to take a few days, because that's not a thing you can just, you can't just go, with your spigot and turn it in a different direction. One, that is not how oil works and two, that is not how geopolitics work, but it will I suspect, drop in negativity and there is absolutely no appetite for boots on the ground.
J. Aughenbaugh: No.
N. Rodgers: The polls show all across the board, including staunch Republicans and staunch MAGA supporters who are like, no, do not drop marines in there. We don't want more death than we've already had because I think we've lost four service members, and we don't want to lose any more. There's no appetite for that. It's okay if we bombard them with planes where our guys aren't going to get hurt, but we're not okay with people being killed for this. The polls are very mixed.
J. Aughenbaugh: But this is complicated. Again, I've told anybody who's asked me, guys, there's the Constitution as written in the Constitution in practice, and what has developed over time is a deference to the Office of President in conducting US foreign policy and also being commander in chief. Now, if we don't like that.
N. Rodgers: I was going to say there is a fix.
J. Aughenbaugh: There is a fix.
N. Rodgers: It's called voting.
J. Aughenbaugh: It's called voting. We could put different presidents into office.
N. Rodgers: We could put different Congress members.
J. Aughenbaugh: In office, but do recognize that if we rein in presidents, it means we rein in presidents of both political parties.
N. Rodgers: It means we lean more into Congress, and that means that we need fewer chuckleheads in Congress.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's right.
N. Rodgers: You have to be more careful with your voting.
J. Aughenbaugh: Even if we have fewer chuckleheads in Congress, Congress is a deliberative body. We're going to have slower foreign policymaking than we have enjoyed basically since FDR in World War II. Are we comfortable with this?
N. Rodgers: It's going to take away some of our maverness in the world.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Make us seem more like other countries where they're like, We will get back to you in a week when we decide whether we're going to respond to this provocation or not.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: One could argue, maybe that's a cooling down period, and it gives everybody a chance to go, oh, hey, no, let's not.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. Are we comfortable?
N. Rodgers: Let's not be starting something or answering something? Because the world is different than when the Framers wrote the US Constitution. When they would send and, that's thank you, Aughie for an excellent plug for our upcoming episodes in July, when we talk about the Declaration of Independence, they had to write the Declaration of Independence, and then they had to roll it up and put it in a box and put it on a boat, and it took three weeks to get to England and and then somebody went to the king and said, hey, I got this thing in a box for you to read, and he would pull it out and read it and go, what? They've declared independence? I don't think so. Then he wrote back saying, no, you're not. Then he put it in a box, and he put it on a boat. It took three weeks to get back to me like, you know what I mean? Diplomacy was a much longer.
J. Aughenbaugh: Slower.
N. Rodgers: Slower process than it is now.
J. Aughenbaugh: Human endeavor.
N. Rodgers: Right now, somebody would just send you a text. We're leaving peace out XOXO Americans. Then the King would go, no, you're not. I'm going to send some people over, knock it off. It would be boop, really fast.
J. Aughenbaugh: Well, it's funny, too, because we are critical, for instance, the current president posting a lot of policy initiatives on social media, but how receptive would we be if we find out about policy initiatives in a memo that is written in a hard copy, that's sent to media outlets, other nations, members of Congress.
N. Rodgers: Well, if the grammar was good, I'd be more receptive to that. I have to say, social media grammar upsets me. Not just the president's, but lots of people's. There are periods for a reason, people. There are commas for a reason. Ellipses aren't frightening. They're just what you put after, an etc. It's okay.
J. Aughenbaugh: In official communication, stop using abbreviations.
N. Rodgers: Stop shouting. Stop putting capital letters when you're really when you're not. Nobody ever said to Donald Trump, You know that looks like you're a yelling old man on a lawn. You kids get off by lawn. That's what he looks like whenever he texts, 'cause he has all those, he'll put certain words in full capital so that you're shouting them. calm down there, buddy, anyway.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's different. That's part of it, it's one of the underlying issues here. We have gotten so used to presidents being the lead actor that it would require a significant change in the institutions, the political parties, but also the American public.
N. Rodgers: All of our movies show action presidents doing action things. We hardly ever have movies where presidents are saying, I'm going to take a few hours and just be deliberative about this and really think. Is this the thing I want to do? They're like, Mr. President, I need to know in the next five minutes. In the movies, the President always says, oh, well, I'll give you the perfect answer in the next three minutes and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They're like, no humans should have to live under that level of, no wonder they look like they've aged 1,000 years when they become president, cause if you're asking somebody to live with their foot all the way down on the accelerator all the time, that's got to be exhausting.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah, I'm always reminded of Harrison Ford in Air Force 1, get off my plane. We never think of the speaker of the House saying that, or the Senate majority leader, or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
N. Rodgers: I love J. Rob, but he's never going to be the lead in one of these action films. Pulls off his robe and he's got 14 guns under. He's like, shoot, that's just not going to happen. It's funny. We as Americans, you're right. Our media really embodies the president as this action figure, and yet supposed to also be wise and knowing. All these other things. I'm like, who do we think these people are?
J. Aughenbaugh: 'I'm always struck by when I have conversations with our colleague, Bill Newman about how foreign policy was made by presidents before Trump. They would have these extensive National Security Council briefings, policy memorandums would be written. The leadership of both parties in the House and the Senate would be consulted. Again, this is as recently as, for instance, Bush41 or the Clinton administration, and I'm like, oh, ain't that sweet? That's so antiquated.
N. Rodgers: Maybe some of that is because Donald Trump is a huge consumer of media.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: He is influenced in the same way the American public is influenced by the action president.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah.
N. Rodgers: We should go find a psychology professor and ask him about that. Well, thank you, Aughie. I appreciate I appreciate that the answer to this is complicated and it is not just this president and people need to remember, it is not just Donald Trump who has acted unilaterally. That's been a regular thing for our president.
J. Aughenbaugh: As you pointed out earlier in the podcast, it's been building for nearly a century. I would argue, if you look at Supreme Court rulings, almost two centuries. It will require a significant paradigm shift for us to get out of this practice of presidents, basically acting unchecked in US foreign policy. All right, thanks Nia.
N. Rodgers: Good luck with that, because part of the hubris that leads you to think you should be president, is going to be the hubris that prevents you from saying, this really isn't up to me. This is up to us, and we should have a group discussion about it.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah.
N. Rodgers: What we've done is create a circular environment thereof the person who runs for president believes that they are the person who should be president and they believe that the president should be all powerful.
J. Aughenbaugh: When this podcast started, think about the rhetorical device we frequently have used. Nia, when you become president, and then you tell me, then I'm in the position of saying, well, you can't do that, but again, it's a rhetorical device we have used on this podcast, but it's a rhetorical device that is rooted in reality where presidents and it's not just Trump, I'm still flabbergasted every time I read the drone memo. The drone memo was written by a whole bunch of really smart lawyers in the Obama White House Legal Counsel office, and he signed off on it.
N. Rodgers: Harvard professor.
J. Aughenbaugh: A Harvard professor, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. I'm sorry, this isn't a rogue madman in the office of president. This again, has been building up for decades.
N. Rodgers: Consistently, the one who was the most honest about it was Nixon.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah.
N. Rodgers: If the president does it, it's not wrong. He said that totally without irony.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: He said that, because he honestly believed that. It's been building all along with that idea of, well, if the president does it, then it must be okay. I don't think that's true. You would need somebody like me to be president, but see, I'm too lazy to run for president, which is why you'll never get somebody like me who would say, why don't we discuss this as a group and decide? Like I would think it would be comforting to go to Congress and say, let's get some agreement on whether we think this is a good idea or not. In part because then it helps me convince the American people because they will go back to their districts and say, it's a good idea. We should do it. There's that aspect of it, but also, then I know that I'm not just pissed at Iran for some reason and deciding to, you know what I mean? Because I personally would take the cutting off of maple syrup of my pancakes very seriously, but maybe it would be good for Congress to weigh in and say, you could just have strawberries and cream, or you could have something else. We don't have to go to war with Canada over maple syrup. You know what I mean? Calmer voices in the room saying and the part of the difficulty for presidents now, and I know we're getting off track and I don't want to stay off track is that they also struggle with they don't really do what Lincoln did with the council of what is it?
J. Aughenbaugh: Team of rivals.
N. Rodgers: Team of rivals. That's what it is. It's a team of rivals, where other people say, really? I'm not sure that's a great idea. Now, the people around the president are going, Yeah, bomb the Canadians and take their maple syrup. They don't get to tell us no, stupid Canadians. You know what I mean? Instead of saying, oh, really, President Rogers, I'm not sure that that's really Canada has been a really great ally for a long time, maybe we should just ask nicely and see if they'll respond.
J. Aughenbaugh: The last two presidential administrations, if they've had one common characteristic is that the presidents have surrounded themselves with a whole bunch of sycophants. Yes, people. To me, I've always got my best ideas. I've always learned the most by surrounding myself with people who are willing to go ahead and say, Aughie, that ain't a good idea.
N. Rodgers: That's why you surround yourself with people smarter than you are, so that they're constantly raising your game.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Every person in my friend group is smarter than I am, and it's because I'm constantly trying to reach up.
J. Aughenbaugh: I want intellectual improvement all the time. We would hope that that's what presidents want, but a lot of them don't want that. They want somebody to say, you are the best president ever, sir, and we will follow you to the end of the Earth. What's unfortunate is that most of those sycophants behind their backs are saying all kinds of other stuff.
J. Aughenbaugh: When they quit their job in the Oval office, then they go and write their tell books. I'm just like, really? Anyways, we've wandered far afield?
N. Rodgers: We wandered away from that, but thank you for answering this question. It's a matter of what the Constitution says versus the practice of how the Constitution has been used in daily life.
J. Aughenbaugh: Cool.
N. Rodgers: Thank you.
J. Aughenbaugh: Thank you, Nia. Good question. Thank you.