There is much debate among academics and policy experts over the power the Constitution affords to the president and Congress to initiate military conflicts. But as Michael Ramsey and Matthew Waxman, law professors at the University of San Diego and Columbia, respectively, point out in a recent law review article, this focus misses the mark. In fact, the most salient constitutional war powers question—in our current era dominated by authorizations for the use of military force—is not whether the president has the unilateral authority to start large-scale conflicts. Rather, it is the scope of Congress’s authority to delegate its war-initiation power to the president. This question is particularly timely as the Supreme Court appears growingly skeptical of significant delegations of congressional power to the executive branch.

Matt Gluck, Research Fellow at Lawfare, spoke with Waxman and Ramsey about their article. They discussed the authors' findings about the history of war power delegations from the Founding era to the present, what these findings might mean if Congress takes a more assertive role in the war powers context, and why these constitutional questions matter if courts are likely to be hesitant to rule on war powers delegation questions.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, Quinta and Scott were joined by Lawfare Senior Editor and Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Molly Reynolds to talk through some big stories at the intersection of politics and national security, including:

• “Over the Hill.” Congress is back in town and up to its old tricks, kicking the can of government funding down the road and still debating a funding package for Ukraine and other Biden administration priorities. As President Biden prepares to meet with congressional leaders at the White House, what are the odds of any sort of functioning legislature in this heated election year?
• “Rewarmed Deterrence?” After weeks of threats, the United States and its allies finally took military action against the Houthi movement that has been threatening maritime traffic through the Red Sea in purported response to the Israeli military operation in Gaza. But will this solve the problem or only invite another cycle of escalation?
• “The Frozen Corn Primary.” The first step of the 2024 election is officially over and the race is down to three candidates, with former President Trump having won the Iowa caucuses handily over rivals Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley. What does this first race tell us about the trajectory of the 2024 race—and how it intersects with Trump’s legal travails?

For object lessons, Quinta recommended Paul Murray's book “The Beesting” as a pleasantly sad-funny read. Scott gave his annual PSA about why it's worth watching the divisional round of the NFL playoffs and endorsed the amazing "Art But Make it Sports" account on Twitter and Substack. And Molly told the story of Bob, the man who found the Alaska Airlines door plug in his backyard. 

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's another episode of “Trump's Trials and Tribulations,” recorded on January 18 in front of a live audience on YouTube and Zoom. Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes and Lawfare Senior Editors Quinta Jurecic and Roger Parloff discussed where the Section 3 disqualification litigation stands across the country and at the Supreme Court, about some amicus briefs, about the lack of action from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Trump's presidential immunity defense, and about a puzzling statement from a few D.C. Circuit judges on a different D.C. Circuit matter involving Twitter and executive privilege. They also talked about what Judge Cannon is up to in Florida, and of course, they took audience questions from Lawfare Material Supporters on Zoom. 

To be able to submit questions to the panelists, you should become a Material Supporter at lawfaremedia.org/support.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From January 28, 2017: President Trump kicked off the first foreign policy crisis of his new administration by signing an executive order mandating the construction of the much-promised border wall with Mexico, resulting in as-yet-unresolved confusion as to how the wall will be paid for and an ongoing diplomatic scuffle with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. Benjamin Wittes spoke with Stephanie Leutert, the Mexico Security Initiative Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin and writer of Lawfare's "Beyond the Border" series, to chat about what the wall might look like, how effective it will or won't be, and what this means for U.S.-Mexico relations.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with location data broker X-Mode Social. X-Mode collects over 10 billion location data points from all over the world every day, and sells it to clients in a range of industries, like advertisers, consulting firms, and private government contractors. The FTC argued that the data broker was conducting unfair business practices, including selling people’s sensitive location data.

To discuss the FTC settlement and its implications, Lawfare's Fellow in Technology Policy and Law Eugenia Lostri sat down with Justin Sherman, Founder and CEO of Global Cyber Strategies and a Senior Fellow at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy. They talked about the FTC’s groundbreaking decision to list sensitive locations about which X-Mode cannot sell data, the likelihood that we will see further FTC action against data brokers, and the persistent need for comprehensive privacy legislation to better address harms.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lloyd Austin's hospitalization and delayed communication about it have spurred much commentary and questions about the role of the secretary of defense in the US nuclear-strike chain of command.

David Priess spoke with Hans Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, about his path to expertise on nuclear issues, the chain of command for nuclear strike authorization (and recent comments from elected representatives that misunderstand it), alternatives to the current system, fictional scenarios of nuclear launches, what is known about different nuclear states' authorization processes, the "letters of last resort" for UK nuclear submarines, deterrence and human psychology, and more.

Among the works mentioned in this episode:

The TV movie The Day After

The movie WarGames

The movie The Bedford Incident

The music video for "Land of Confusion" by Genesis

The movie Dr. Strangelove

The movie Fail Safe

The movie The Man Who Saved the World

The movie A Few Good Men

"Finger on the Button," paper by Jeffrey G. Lewis and Bruno Tertais, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey

The book The Dead Hand by David Hoffman

The movie Crimson Tide

Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last month, the Department of Defense released its first-ever policy on civilian harm reduction. But as Marc Garlasco recently wrote in Lawfare, “[T]he policy comes at an awkward time … The U.S. military has issued guidance on how to protect civilians during operations just as its close ally Israel has reportedly killed thousands of Palestinians with American bombs.” 

And yet, many aspects of the new policy are nothing short of groundbreaking.  

Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Marc, a former targeting professional and war crimes investigator and current military advisor at PAX, as well as Emily Tripp, the Director of Airwars, a transparency watchdog NGO which tracks, assesses, archives, and investigates civilian harm claims in conflict-affected nations. They discussed the state of civilian harm worldwide; the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Pentagon’s new policy; and recent efforts to get U.S. allies and partners to buy in. 

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Chimène Keitner is the Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at the University of California at Davis. She is a leading international law authority and served for a number of years at the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser. She is the author of a lengthy piece in Lawfare about South Africa's petition under the Genocide Convention against Israel in the International Court of Justice.

Chimène joined Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes to talk about the litigation. What is South Africa's claim under the Genocide Convention? What is Israel's defense? Where are both sides vulnerable? And how will the court likely consider the matter at this preliminary stage?

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Over the last two months, Houthi militants have waged more than 27 attacks against merchant shipping and U.S. and partner forces in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, purportedly in response to the war in Gaza. These attacks have significantly disrupted global shipping and surged the Middle East into an even more precarious security situation. Following a large-scale Houthi attack on U.S. and British ships, the U.S. and U.K. on Jan. 11 launched over 150 munitions targeting almost 30 Houthi sites in Yemen. The U.S. on Jan. 12 carried out another strike on a Houthi radar facility. The Houthis have since retaliated with multiple strikes targeting U.S. forces. Yesterday, the Houthis for the first time successfully struck a cargo ship owned and operated by the United States.

Lawfare Research Fellow Matt Gluck sat down with Gregory Johnsen, the Associate Director of the Institute for Future Conflict at the U.S. Air Force Academy and Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson to discuss the spate of Houthi attacks, the U.S. response and the associated domestic and international law questions, and where the fighting is likely to go from here. What can history tell us about the possible paths forward? Why did the U.S. act when it did? What’s in it for the Houthis? They chewed over these questions and more. 

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From March 4, 2017: Yesterday, Just Security and the Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law hosted Benjamin Wittes for a conversation on a question about the path of the Trump presidency so far: what happens when we can’t take the president’s oath of office seriously?

Ben’s talk focused on an essay he and Quinta Jurecic posted to Lawfare simultaneously with the speech, in which they argued that the presidential oath—little discussed though it may be in constitutional jurisprudence and academic literature—is actually the glue that holds together many of our assumptions about how government functions. And when large enough numbers of people come to doubt the sincerity of the president’s oath, those assumptions begin to crumble.

Big thanks to Ryan Goodman of Just Security and Zachary Goldman of the Center on Law and Security for putting together this event. Make sure to also read Ryan’s Just Security followup post on his discussion with Ben and the questions raised by our essay.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.