To: Members​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Senate​ ​Foreign​ ​Relations​ ​Committee

From: Protect​ ​Democracy

Date: December​ ​8,​ ​2017
RE: Strategy​ ​for​ ​Hearing​ ​on​ ​“Using​ ​Force:​ ​Strategic,​ ​Political​ ​and​ ​Legal​ ​Considerations”
______________________________________________________________________________

This​ ​memorandum​ ​proposes​ ​a​ ​strategy​ ​for​ ​ensuring​ ​that​ ​next​ ​week’s​ ​hearing​ ​on​ ​the
powers​ ​of​ ​the​ ​President​ ​to​ ​take​ ​the​ ​nation​ ​to​ ​war​ ​produces​ ​the​ ​most​ ​effective​ ​possible​ ​outcome.
The​ ​goal​ ​of​ ​this​ ​hearing​ ​should​ ​be​ ​to​ ​produce​ ​media​ ​headlines​ ​that​ ​the​ ​President​ ​must​ ​go​ ​to
Congress​ ​before​ ​directing​ ​military​ ​action​ ​against​ ​a​ ​foreign​ ​sovereign,​ ​including,​ ​for
example,​ ​North​ ​Korea.

Background

Americans​ ​and​ ​members​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Committee​ ​are​ ​concerned​ ​by​ ​heated​ ​recent​ ​rhetoric
suggesting​ ​that​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​may​ ​be​ ​nearing​ ​a​ ​military​ ​conflict​ ​with​ ​North​ ​Korea​ ​--​ ​a
conflict​ ​that​ ​could​ ​have​ ​catastrophic​ ​consequences​ ​even​ ​notwithstanding​ ​the​ ​nuclear​ ​element.
This​ ​concern​ ​is​ ​exacerbated​ ​by​ ​the​ ​apprehension​ ​of​ ​many​ ​that​ ​such​ ​a​ ​conflict​ ​could​ ​be​ ​initiated
without​ ​a​ ​sufficient​ ​public​ ​debate​ ​and/or​ ​without​ ​the​ ​consent​ ​of​ ​the​ ​American​ ​people.​ ​ ​The
Chairman​ ​has​ ​therefore​ ​rightly​ ​convened​ ​a​ ​series​ ​of​ ​hearings​ ​to​ ​consider​ ​what​ ​authority​ ​the
President​ ​does​ ​or​ ​does​ ​not​ ​have,​ ​and​ ​what​ ​role​ ​Congress​ ​should​ ​play,​ ​in​ ​exercising​ ​its​ ​oversight
powers​ ​over​ ​the​ ​area​ ​of​ ​war​ ​making.​ ​ ​For​ ​these​ ​hearings​ ​to​ ​be​ ​effective,​ ​however,​ ​they​ ​must
deliver​ ​on​ ​concrete​ ​goals​ ​that​ ​reassert​ ​the​ ​Congressional​ ​role​ ​and​ ​make​ ​that​ ​role​ ​sufficiently​ ​clear
to​ ​the​ ​Executive​ ​branch​ ​that​ ​Congress​ ​is​ ​able​ ​to​ ​perform​ ​its​ ​constitutional​ ​functions.

The​ ​Founders​ ​divided​ ​war​ ​authorities​ ​between​ ​the​ ​President​ ​and​ ​Congress.​ ​ ​The​ ​purpose
was​ ​to​ ​allow​ ​the​ ​President,​ ​as​ ​Commander-in-Chief,​ ​to​ ​defend​ ​the​ ​country​ ​against​ ​attack​ ​or​ ​other
emergency,​ ​but​ ​not​ ​initiate​ ​potential​ ​or​ ​actual​ ​hostilities​ ​without​ ​Congress’​ ​assent​ ​to​ ​ensure
political​ ​accountability.

The​ ​Committee​ ​should​ ​be​ ​commended​ ​for​ ​taking​ ​steps​ ​to​ ​restore​ ​the​ ​Founders’
Constitutional​ ​design.​ ​ ​To​ ​do​ ​that,​ ​however,​ ​will​ ​require​ ​more​ ​than​ ​simply​ ​holding​ ​hearings.​ ​ ​The
hearings​ ​must​ ​drive​ ​a​ ​national​ ​conversation​ ​that​ ​restores​ ​the​ ​proper​ ​balance​ ​of​ ​authorities.

This​ ​hearing​ ​has​ ​the​ ​potential​ ​to​ ​mark​ ​a​ ​critical​ ​point​ ​in​ ​the​ ​national​ ​debate:​ ​the​ ​point​ ​at
which​ ​expert​ ​witnesses​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Members​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Committee​ ​make​ ​publicly​ ​clear​ ​that​ ​the

1
President​ ​must​ ​go​ ​to​ ​Congress​ ​before​ ​directing​ ​military​ ​action​ ​against​ ​a​ ​foreign​ ​sovereign,
including,​ ​for​ ​example,​ ​North​ ​Korea.

This​ ​hearing​ ​provides​ ​an​ ​excellent​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​advance​ ​that​ ​goal.​ ​ ​This​ ​memo​ ​includes
proposed​ ​questions​ ​for​ ​Committee​ ​members​ ​that​ ​will​ ​help​ ​to​ ​refine​ ​an​ ​understanding​ ​of​ ​how​ ​and
why​ ​Congress​ ​must​ ​exercise​ ​its​ ​authority​ ​in​ ​this​ ​context.​ ​ ​The​ ​questions​ ​are​ ​also​ ​designed​ ​to
identify​ ​if​ ​there​ ​are​ ​areas​ ​where​ ​disagreement​ ​or​ ​a​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​clarity​ ​exist​ ​that​ ​might​ ​benefit​ ​from​ ​an
assertion​ ​of​ ​Congressional​ ​prerogative.​ ​ ​This​ ​memo​ ​also​ ​includes​ ​suggestions​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​the
public​ ​is​ ​properly​ ​informed​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Committee’s​ ​work​ ​at​ ​this​ ​hearing​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​Congress
provides​ ​a​ ​meaningful​ ​check​ ​on​ ​the​ ​President’s​ ​ability​ ​to​ ​start​ ​a​ ​war.

Proposed​ ​Questions​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Witnesses

A. Congress’s​ ​Role​ ​in​ ​Light​ ​of​ ​Executive​ ​Overreach

The​ ​Constitution​ ​gives​ ​Congress​ ​an​ ​important​ ​role​ ​in​ ​decisions​ ​of​ ​war​ ​and​ ​peace.​ ​ ​Yet​ ​in
recent​ ​decades,​ ​Administrations​ ​of​ ​both​ ​political​ ​parties​ ​have​ ​advanced​ ​an​ ​expanded​ ​view​ ​of
Presidential​ ​power​ ​that​ ​leaves​ ​little​ ​room​ ​for​ ​Congress.1​ ​ ​Article​ ​II​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Constitution,​ ​which
gives​ ​the​ ​President​ ​the​ ​power​ ​of​ ​Commander​ ​in​ ​Chief,​ ​has​ ​been​ ​invoked​ ​for​ ​a​ ​broadening​ ​array
of​ ​“national​ ​interests,”​ ​without​ ​a​ ​Presidential​ ​consultation​ ​with​ ​Congress​ ​or​ ​invocation​ ​of​ ​“war.”
The​ ​Executive​ ​Branch’s​ ​approach​ ​departs​ ​from​ ​the​ ​balance​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Framers​ ​struck.​ ​ ​Yet​ ​until
recently,​ ​Congress​ ​has​ ​largely​ ​acquiesced​ ​in​ ​this​ ​approach​ ​and​ ​not​ ​asserted​ ​its​ ​own​ ​constitutional
authority​ ​and​ ​responsibility.

1. What​ ​role​ ​does​ ​the​ ​Constitution​ ​assign​ ​to​ ​Congress​ ​regarding​ ​decisions​ ​about
going​ ​to​ ​war?​ ​ ​Why​ ​did​ ​the​ ​Founders​ ​entrust​ ​Congress,​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​the​ ​President,
with​ ​this​ ​authority?
2. What​ ​do​ ​you​ ​see​ ​as​ ​Congress’​ ​role​ ​and​ ​responsibility​ ​in​ ​addressing​ ​issues​ ​of
national​ ​defense,​ ​including​ ​potential​ ​military​ ​threats?
3. Should​ ​the​ ​President​ ​engage​ ​and​ ​consult​ ​with​ ​Congress​ ​on​ ​issues​ ​affecting​ ​our
national​ ​defense?​ ​ ​What​ ​level​ ​of​ ​engagement​ ​and​ ​consultation​ ​would​ ​you​ ​advise?
4. In​ ​particular,​ ​should​ ​the​ ​President​ ​seek​ ​authorization​ ​from​ ​Congress​ ​before
initiating​ ​hostilities​ ​against​ ​a​ ​foreign​ ​country?
5. What​ ​should​ ​Congress​ ​do,​ ​if​ ​anything,​ ​if​ ​the​ ​President​ ​doesn’t​ ​engage​ ​Congress
on​ ​issues​ ​of​ ​war-making​ ​and​ ​national​ ​defense,​ ​including​ ​potential​ ​military​ ​action?

1
​ ​See,​ ​e.g.,​ ​2001​ ​OLC​ ​Opinion​​ ​(“​In​ ​both​ ​the​ ​War​ ​Powers​ ​Resolution​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Joint​ ​Resolution,​ ​Congress​ ​has
recognized​ ​the​ ​President's​ ​authority​ ​to​ ​use​ ​force​ ​in​ ​circumstances​ ​such​ ​as​ ​those​ ​created​ ​by​ ​the​ ​September​ ​11
incidents.​ ​Neither​ ​statute,​ ​however,​ ​can​ ​place​ ​any​ ​limits​ ​on​ ​the​ ​President's​ ​determinations​ ​as​ ​to​ ​any​ ​terrorist​ ​threat,
the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​military​ ​force​ ​to​ ​be​ ​used​ ​in​ ​response,​ ​or​ ​the​ ​method,​ ​timing,​ ​and​ ​nature​ ​of​ ​the​ ​response.​ ​These
decisions,​ ​under​ ​our​ ​Constitution,​ ​are​ ​for​ ​the​ ​President​ ​alone​ ​to​ ​make​.”);​ ​2002​ ​OLC​ ​Opinion​​ ​(“Accordingly,​ ​we
believe​ ​that​ ​the​ ​President’s​ ​constitutional​ ​authority​ ​to​ ​undertake​ ​military​ ​action​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​the​ ​national​ ​security
interests​ ​of​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​is​ ​firmly​ ​established​ ​in​ ​the​ ​text​ ​and​ ​structure​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Constitution​ ​and​ ​in​ ​executive
branch​ ​practice.​ ​Thus,​ ​to​ ​the​ ​extent​ ​that​ ​the​ ​President​ ​were​ ​to​ ​determine​ ​that​ ​military​ ​action​ ​against​ ​Iraq​ ​would
protect​ ​our​ ​national​ ​interests,​ ​he​ ​could​ ​take​ ​such​ ​action​ ​based​ ​on​ ​his​ ​independent​ ​constitutional​ ​authority;​ ​no​ ​action
by​ ​Congress​ ​would​ ​be​ ​necessary​.”);​ ​2013​ ​Statement​ ​of​ ​Pres.​ ​Obama​​ ​(“​I​ ​believe​ ​I​ ​have​ ​the​ ​authority​ ​to​ ​carry​ ​out​ ​this
[Syrian]​ ​military​ ​action​ ​without​ ​specific​ ​congressional​ ​authorization.”).
2
 B.​ ​The​ ​Need​ ​for​ ​Public​ ​Support​ ​to​ ​Succeed​ ​in​ ​Military​ ​Conflicts

One​ ​reason​ ​the​ ​Founders​ ​entrusted​ ​Congress​ ​with​ ​the​ ​power​ ​to​ ​declare​ ​war​ ​is​ ​because
they​ ​understood​ ​that​ ​our​ ​country​ ​could​ ​not​ ​be​ ​successful​ ​in​ ​conflict​ ​without​ ​the​ ​support​ ​of​ ​the
American​ ​people.​ ​ ​As​ ​U.S.​ ​District​ ​Court​ ​Judge​ ​Christopher​ ​Cooper​ ​put​ ​it​ ​in​ ​a​ ​ruling​​ ​earlier​ ​this
year​ ​about​ ​disclosure​ ​of​ ​the​ ​legal​ ​justification​ ​for​ ​the​ ​April​ ​2017​ ​Syria​ ​strikes,​ ​“Being​ ​closed​ ​off
from​ ​such​ ​a​ ​debate​ ​is​ ​itself​ ​a​ ​harm​ ​in​ ​an​ ​open​ ​democracy...​ ​Military​ ​strikes​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​undone.”
As​ ​Presidents​ ​and​ ​Congresses​ ​of​ ​both​ ​parties​ ​have​ ​allowed​ ​for​ ​the​ ​erosion​ ​of​ ​Congress’s
constitutional​ ​role,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​important​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​officials​ ​from​ ​both​ ​branches​ ​still​ ​understand​ ​the
critical​ ​need​ ​for​ ​public​ ​support​ ​before​ ​our​ ​country​ ​engages​ ​in​ ​military​ ​conflict.​ ​ ​Toward​ ​that​ ​end,
the​ ​Committee​ ​may​ ​wish​ ​to​ ​ask:

1. Do​ ​you​ ​agree​ ​that​ ​success​ ​on​ ​the​ ​battlefield​ ​requires​ ​the​ ​support​ ​of​ ​the​ ​American
people?
2. Do​ ​you​ ​agree​ ​that​ ​the​ ​American​ ​people​ ​have​ ​a​ ​right,​ ​through​ ​their​ ​elected
representatives,​ ​to​ ​make​ ​informed​ ​decisions​ ​about​ ​whether​ ​and​ ​when​ ​our​ ​nation
goes​ ​to​ ​war?
3. If​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​initiates​ ​military​ ​action​ ​against​ ​North​ ​Korea,​ ​what​ ​are​ ​some​ ​possible
consequences​ ​and​ ​what​ ​risks​ ​would​ ​this​ ​pose​ ​to​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States?
4. Do​ ​you​ ​agree​ ​that​ ​the​ ​American​ ​people​ ​have​ ​a​ ​right​ ​not​ ​to​ ​be​ ​taken​ ​into​ ​a
potentially​ ​nuclear​ ​conflict​ ​without​ ​an​ ​informed​ ​debate​ ​and​ ​decision​ ​by​ ​the
people’s​ ​representatives?

C.​ ​ ​Legal​ ​Authority​ ​to​ ​Initiate​ ​Hostilities​ ​with​ ​Respect​ ​to​ ​North​ ​Korea

As​ ​a​ ​world​ ​leader,​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​must​ ​carry​ ​out​ ​military​ ​action​ ​in​ ​a​ ​lawful​ ​manner
under​ ​both​ ​our​ ​own​ ​domestic​ ​law​ ​framework​ ​and​ ​international​ ​law.​ ​ ​Under​ ​domestic​ ​law,
congressional​ ​authorization​ ​is​ ​a​ ​necessary​ ​precursor​ ​to​ ​the​ ​President’s​ ​use​ ​of​ ​military​ ​force,
except​ ​in​ ​cases​ ​of​ ​self-defense.​ ​ ​Under​ ​international​ ​law,​ ​use​ ​of​ ​force​ ​must​ ​be​ ​pursuant​ ​to​ ​a​ ​U.S.
Security​ ​Council​ ​resolution​ ​or​ ​in​ ​self-defense,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​defending​ ​against​ ​an​ ​imminent​ ​attack.

1. Does​ ​Congress​ ​have​ ​authority​ ​to​ ​decide​ ​whether​ ​or​ ​not​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​goes​ ​to
war​ ​with​ ​another​ ​foreign​ ​sovereign,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​North​ ​Korea?
2. Does​ ​the​ ​President​ ​require​ ​prior​ ​authorization​ ​from​ ​Congress​ ​before​ ​initiating
military​ ​action​ ​against​ ​a​ ​foreign​ ​sovereign,​ ​for​ ​example,​ ​North​ ​Korea?
3. What​ ​can​ ​Congress​ ​do​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​the​ ​President​ ​does​ ​not​ ​initiate​ ​a​ ​new​ ​war
without​ ​Congressional​ ​authorization?
4. If​ ​the​ ​President​ ​were​ ​to​ ​initiate​ ​military​ ​action​ ​against​ ​North​ ​Korea​ ​without
congressional​ ​authorization,​ ​what​ ​would​ ​that​ ​mean​ ​for​ ​preserving​ ​Congress’​ ​role,
compared​ ​to​ ​the​ ​executive​ ​branch,​ ​in​ ​the​ ​war​ ​powers​ ​function?​ ​ ​How​ ​should
Congress​ ​respond?
5. If​ ​the​ ​President​ ​initiated​ ​military​ ​action​ ​in​ ​the​ ​absence​ ​of​ ​an​ ​imminent​ ​threat,​ ​and
without​ ​a​ ​U.N.​ ​Security​ ​Council​ ​mandate,​ ​would​ ​would​ ​be​ ​the​ ​international​ ​legal
ramifications?

3
 Available​ ​Tools​ ​for​ ​Congress​ ​to​ ​Assert​ ​Its​ ​Constitutional​ ​Role

This​ ​hearing,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​others​ ​in​ ​this​ ​series,​ ​can​ ​play​ ​an​ ​important​ ​role​ ​in​ ​re-asserting
Congress’s​ ​constitutional​ ​role​ ​in​ ​decisions​ ​about​ ​war​ ​and​ ​peace.​ ​ ​In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​continue​ ​to​ ​lead​ ​this
important​ ​public​ ​conversation​ ​on​ ​the​ ​proper​ ​role​ ​of​ ​the​ ​President,​ ​the​ ​Committee​ ​should​ ​follow
up​ ​the​ ​hearing​ ​in​ ​some​ ​of​ ​the​ ​following​ ​ways.​ ​ ​Again,​ ​the​ ​goal​ ​of​ ​these​ ​actions​ ​would​ ​be​ ​to
continue​ ​to​ ​drive​ ​the​ ​message​ ​that​ ​the​ ​President​ ​must​ ​seek​ ​authority​ ​from​ ​Congress​ ​before
directing​ ​military​ ​action​ ​against​ ​a​ ​foreign​ ​sovereign,​ ​including,​ ​for​ ​example,​ ​North​ ​Korea.

● Consider​ ​issuing​ ​a​ ​joint,​ ​bipartisan​ ​public​ ​statement​ ​after​ ​the​ ​hearing​ ​to​ ​frame​ ​the
Committee’s​ ​view​ ​that​ ​in​ ​light​ ​of​ ​important​ ​legal​ ​and​ ​policy​ ​considerations​ ​the​ ​President
must​ ​seek​ ​authorization​ ​from​ ​Congress​ ​before​ ​taking​ ​military​ ​action​ ​against​ ​a​ ​foreign
sovereign,​ ​including​ ​North​ ​Korea.

● Submit​ ​questions​ ​for​ ​the​ ​record​ ​to​ ​the​ ​witnesses​ ​from​ ​this​ ​hearing​ ​and​ ​prior​ ​hearings​ ​to
ensure​ ​there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​strong​ ​legislative​ ​record​ ​on​ ​the​ ​legal​ ​and​ ​policy​ ​reasons​ ​why​ ​the
Constitution​ ​gives​ ​Congress​ ​the​ ​authority​ ​to​ ​start​ ​wars.

● Ensure​ ​that​ ​in​ ​any​ ​upcoming​ ​nomination​ ​hearings,​ ​nominees​ ​explain​ ​their​ ​views​ ​about
Congress’s​ ​role​ ​in​ ​decisions​ ​about​ ​taking​ ​the​ ​country​ ​to​ ​war,​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​go​ ​on​ ​the​ ​record
about​ ​what​ ​they​ ​would​ ​do​ ​if​ ​the​ ​President​ ​seeks​ ​to​ ​take​ ​an​ ​unlawful​ ​action.

● Hold​ ​additional​ ​hearings,​ ​including​ ​one​ ​with​ ​high-level​ ​Administration​ ​attorneys​ ​from
the​ ​State​ ​Department,​ ​Justice​ ​Department,​ ​and​ ​Defense​ ​Department​ ​to​ ​get​ ​a​ ​clear
understanding​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Administration’s​ ​views​ ​of​ ​its​ ​authority​ ​to​ ​start​ ​a​ ​war​ ​--​ ​and​ ​to​ ​get
Administration​ ​lawyers​ ​to​ ​answer​ ​the​ ​Committee’s​ ​questions​ ​about​ ​Congress’s​ ​role​ ​in
this​ ​area.

● Conduct​ ​oversight​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Administration’s​ ​views​ ​of​ ​its​ ​legal​ ​authority​ ​to​ ​conduct​ ​strikes
against​ ​foreign​ ​sovereigns.​ ​ ​As​ ​a​ ​key​ ​component​ ​of​ ​this,​ ​the​ ​Committee​ ​should​ ​request​ ​--
and,​ ​if​ ​needed,​ ​subpoena​ ​--​ ​secret​ ​Administration​ ​legal​ ​memos​ ​and​ ​talking​ ​points​​ ​about
its​ ​strikes​ ​against​ ​the​ ​Syrian​ ​government,​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​any​ ​such​ ​documents​ ​about​ ​its
purported​ ​legal​ ​authority​ ​to​ ​go​ ​to​ ​war​ ​in​ ​North​ ​Korea.

● Consider​ ​legislation​ ​to​ ​emphasize​ ​that​ ​the​ ​President​ ​alone​ ​cannot​ ​start​ ​a​ ​war​ ​against
another​ ​foreign​ ​sovereign.