Thread by @LizaGoitein

Today, @ChrisMurphyCT, @SenMikeLee, and @SenSanders unveiled the National Security Powers Act (NSPA), a bill that would begin to correct the power imbalance between the president and Congress on key issues of war and peace. 1/18 washingtonpost.com/national-secur…

The bill has three parts. The first part would inject life back into the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law that was meant to constrain presidential warmaking but has utterly failed to do so. 2/18

The WPR required presidents to notify Congress when U.S. military forces are engaged (or will likely become engaged) in “hostilities.” It mandated an end to such hostilities within 60 days if Congress did not authorize them. 3/18

The law didn’t work, largely because the executive branch has defined “hostilities” to exclude pretty much anything involved in modern warfare. The 7-month air-bombing campaign in Libya in 2011, for instance, didn’t qualify, according to the Obama administration. 4/18

Ask yourself, if another country dropped bombs on the United States for seven months, would we consider that to be “hostilities”? 5/18

The NSPA defines “hostilities” in a way that the executive branch can’t wiggle out of. It also clearly defines the narrow situations in which the president has inherent constitutional authority to take military action (for instance, when the U.S. is under attack). 6/18

It gives the president 20 days to exercise any inherent constitutional authority without congressional approval. And it creates an automatic funding cut-off if Congress hasn’t authorized military intervention within that deadline. 7/18

…oh, and it sunsets the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs. Because endless war is a moral outrage and an inexcusable drain on resources our nation needs to ensure the welfare of its people. 8/18

The second part of the bill amends the Arms Export Control Act. As enacted, the AECA allowed Congress to disapprove the president’s sale of arms to other countries using a “legislative veto,” a law that takes effect on a simple majority vote without POTUS's signature. 9/18

But in 1983, the Supreme Court ruled legislative vetoes unconstitutional. With that critical check removed, presidents are free to sell arms to nations that can use them in ways Americans didn’t (and wouldn’t) approve—for instance, Saudi Arabia’s vicious assault on Yemen. 10/18

The NSPA would put Congress back in the game. Under the bill, when the president wants to engage in a major sale of arms to another country, it must first notify Congress. What happens next depends on where the arms would be going. 11/18

For most non-NATO countries, the arms sale can’t happen unless/until Congress votes to authorize it. For NATO and certain other countries, Congress has 20 days to vote to disapprove the sale, under expedited procedures that would prohibit filibustering. 12/18

The bill also narrows the grounds on which the president can bypass Congress through “emergency” arms sales, as Trump did when he continued sales to Saudi Arabia after Congress voted to prohibit them. 13/18

Last but not remotely least, the NSPA would reform the National Emergencies Act (NEA)—yet another law that has failed in its original purpose to constrain presidential power. Like the AECA, the NEA relied on the legislative veto to rein in executive overreach. 14/18

Without the legislative veto (removed after SCOTUS struck it down), the NEA contains no meaningful check against presidential abuse. The NSPA would fix this by requiring emergency declarations to terminate automatically after 30 days unless Congress votes to approve them… 15/18

…using expedited procedures that prohibit filibustering. The NSPA also requires congressional reapproval on an annual basis, and it prohibits “permanent emergencies” by putting a total 5-year limit on any emergency declaration. 16/18

These aren’t radical ideas. Their purpose is simply to restore the balance of powers that was originally envisioned in the laws that the NSPA would amend—a balance that better reflects the one set forth in the Constitution. 17/18

The bill’s sponsors deserve our thanks for their vision, their willingness to work across party lines, and their commitment to the constitutional principles that preserve our liberties and our democracy. 18/18