transcribed from the video on Democracy Now. This "~" indicates a space in the conversation

"Amy: Explain exactly what congress can do.

Prof. Golove: There's a kind of myopia about the constitution which is emanating from the executive branch during this period of time. The executive branch sees only the commander-in-chief clause ~

But in fact the constitution gives vast war-powers to congress. It's very, very explicit in the constitution which gives congress the power. Congress has the power to raise money, to borrow money, to provide for the common defense. It has the power to raise and support armies. It has the power to borrow money - these are all explicit powers - the explicit power to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces. It has the power to define offenses against the law of nations which includes the laws of war. It has most famously of all, of course, the power to declare war; as well as the power to issue letters of Mark and Reprisal which is kind of an archaic practice now, but that dealt with privateers during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries-which was a very important form of limited warfare. It also has the power to make rules of capture on land and sea. All of these powers are very explicitly granted to the congress and it should be very clear that the commander-in-chief power is not the only clause in the constitution which deals with War Powers.

Let me add one more thing which is that the administration is very myopic-even about executive powers because even if the president is made commander-in-chief, he is also very explicitly, in the constitution, enjoined faithfully to execute the laws. That does not mean disregarding the laws that congress chooses to pass. So I think it's important to bring a fuller view of what the constitution itself says, let alone the history of its interpretations to the public and to the public's officials in congress.

~ remember when the constitution was passed there was no standing army. The idea of a standing army was anathema to the founding generations and for many generations after that. So when congress was given the power to fund the military, to raise and support armies, then the president wouldn't have had military at his disposal to use-he would have to go affirmatively to congress to raise and support an army for him to use in a foreign adventure of some kind; the check was very, very significant on the president. Today, when there's a standing military, of a huge size, the power seems to be much weaker because that invokes taking money from the military when it's actually engaged in military activity.

Amy: Could Congress pass a law that says we will do something to stop these soldiers from being sent?

Prof. Golove: Absolutely. As a matter of fact constitutional power I believe, as well as the other signatories to the letter: and I think very, very widely in the world of constitutional scholars and constitutional lawyers: that the congress has a plenary authority virtually to pass laws that restrict the scope of war or conflicts in which the president engages. So it's not a question of constitutional power at all. And when some senators and congressmen that the reason they might not be able to adopt measures which block or limit the president's ability to escalate the War in Iraq, and they try to place this on constitutional grounds-I think this is without any foundation for that constitutional argument.

Now there may be political reasons for why they think that's not a good policy for congress to pursue-but that's a wholly different matter, as to whether they are constitutionally compelled to let the president do whatever he wants.

Amy: Do you see any promising movement in congress right now?

Prof. Golove: Well I don't quite know how to answer that question. Clearly there are resolutions by prominent members of congress and the senate that are being introduced now-and remember from a strictly constitutional point of view; these so far are, are non-binding resolutions-at least the main ones that we're reading about and hearing abut in the press. If they are non-binding then they will not prevent the president-even legally. President is clearly within his constitutional authority to disregard those resolutions and go ahead with his plans. Congress has authorized this war. It has placed no limits, legally binding limits, on the number of troops the president can use in this war: And until they do the president is within his legal rights to send more troops to Iraq. So the congress has to come forward to pass a binding-resolution, not just a non-binding resolution.

Amy: And is there an issue on setting a time limit?

Prof. Golove: That's also something that's within, I think, Congresses constitutional authority. Time limits are again, like cutting off funds, they're a treacherous area for congress because they predict the future-they predict future conditions. They demand that very definite steps be taken when the conditions on the ground at that moment aren't entirely clear. So congress has always, historically, been quite wary of adopting these kinds of... during the Vietnam War, at some point, it became the only mechanism left for congress-and they did do it!"

Jim Kirwan