"We asked 2020 candidates how they would wield presidential power. Here is what they said."

A NYT extravaganza.

I tried to read some of that but it's a tough slog through the verbiage. The questions are long and carefully framed, but you're not adequately rewarded for understanding the questions because the answers are not written to make the distinctions clear.

My son John blogged this by choosing just one question and only 2 answers to it.

The one question John chose was:

1. Presidential War Powers

In recent years, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has claimed that the Constitution authorizes the president, as commander in chief, to order the military to attack other countries without congressional permission if the president determines that this would be anticipatory self-defense or otherwise serve the interests of the United States — at least where the nature, scope and duration of the anticipated hostilities are “limited,” like airstrikes against Libyan government forces in 2011 and Syrian government forces in 2017 and 2018.

Do you agree with the O.L.C.’s reasoning? Under what circumstances other than a literally imminent threat to the United States, if any, does the Constitution permit a president to order an attack on another country without prior Congressional authorization? What about bombing Iranian or North Korean nuclear facilities?

You have to work just to understand the question, and I admire the NYT for framing the questions with such precision. But the candidates can't give straight answers — especially the ones who are and will probably continue to be members of Congress. The 2 answers John picked out are from Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg — neither of whom is currently a member of Congress. John seems to see a distinct difference between the 2 answers.

I'll edit it down to try to make the difference obvious. Biden says: "Only in the most exigent circumstances would I use force without extensive consultation with Congress." He excludes "[a]ny initiation of the use of force against Iran or North Korea – unless in response to an imminent attack" from the "exigent circumstances" that allow the President to act alone.

Buttigieg — who generates more text — says he "will take swift and decisive action to protect the nation when necessary." He excludes attacking North Korea or Iran unless there's "a threat that is truly imminent." He says he'll respect the limitations imposed by the War Powers Resolution and "explore legislation" that goes even further in limiting the President.

What's the difference? All I see is Buttigieg going out of his way to talk about the War Powers Resolution. He'd "respect" it. I don't even know if that means he thinks Congress has the constitutional power to restrict the President like that or if he's just saying he'd voluntarily follow it to the extent that he sees fit. Remember how Obama respected the War Powers Resolution?

ADDED: In answer to that last question, Meade texts me a link to "Obama 86’d the War Powers Resolution/Eighty-six — that’s how many days have passed without President Barack Obama seeking congressional approval for his actions in Iraq, despite a decades-old law that forbids presidents from waiting so long to get lawmakers’ sign-off on military engagements. Nevertheless, Obama says he doesn’t need Congress’s go-ahead, and that’s just fine with most of Capitol Hill" (Foreign Policy). That's from September 2014.

From 2011, I have a blog post, "Obama's Libya adventure does not fit the War Powers Resolution... and can only be supported by the most extreme view of presidential power."