PBS NEWSHOUR: David Brooks of The Atlantic and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW join Amna Nawaz to discuss Congress rejecting a war powers resolution on the Iran war.

AMNA NAWAZ, PBS NEWSHOUR: I do want to ask about what happened here in Washington last night, House Republicans once again narrowly rejected a war powers resolution. This was related, of course, to the U.S. and Israeli war in Iran. It was the first vote that they have taken since that crossed the 60-day legal deadline that requires Congress to authorize force. And, of course, the White House argues that the cease-fire stopped that clock. But there were three Republicans who voted with Democrats this time to lead it to a tie, which means it didn’t pass. Those three Republicans were Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Tom Barrett of Michigan. Jared Golden was the lone Democrat to oppose it. Jonathan, I will start with you. What did those Republican votes at this point in time say to you? JONATHAN CAPEHART, MS NOW: It says to me that the president’s hold on the Republican Conference might be weakening with Republicans, that these Republicans — well, Thomas Massie has always been like a permanent no against the president. But these are folks who have been back in their home districts, and this is their first week back since being away. They’re hearing from their constituents, who are probably not happy about the United States being in a war, but also the impacts of those — of the war on the economy. These are folks who are driving their — seeing their gas prices through the roof. So I would like to think that they’re reflecting their constituents’ anger back at home. And if there is another vote, we will know if that is indeed the case if those three Republicans are joined by more Republicans. NAWAZ: Massie, we should point out, is also facing this Republican — his election on Tuesday as well. CAPEHART: Right. NAWAZ: David, go ahead. DAVID BROOKS, THE ATLANTIC: Yes, I mean, I am clearly — inflation’s at 3.8 now. So that’s up. Clearly, the people who supported the war are beaming to waiver. The people who opposed the war are like, yes, we were right. And so that’s just the vibe, and that’s just the reality. As for the War Powers Act I’m old, and the War Powers Act has been invoked, as far as I know, three times in my lifetime. NAWAZ: Yes. BROOKS: Well, it was created in the ’70s. I was still a little kiddie. [LAUGHTER] BROOKS: But I think it was the two Iraq wars and Afghanistan is the only time Congress — and all presidents have said, no, I’m not going to Congress. And, sometimes, it’s because they stopped the war at 60 days, but sometimes they just run over Congress. And I wish there would be a War Powers Act. I wish that — because we would have had a national debate about this. And we would have to make the case for why this was a good thing or not a good thing. It would have really helped President Trump to have that debate. But having Congress at this stage, when Trump is clearly trying to get out, to pull the rug out from him, I think that would be harmful to the U.S. negotiating position. CAPEHART: One way we could have that debate you’re talking about is to — is for Senator Murkowski of Alaska to follow through on her, not so much a threat, But to offer an authorization for the use of military force. You have that conversation about what the president can and can’t do, how long it should last. And at least Congress then would at least try to establish some guardrails, but I haven’t heard anything whether that’s even going anywhere.

RealClearPolitics Videos