Nadler was an early endorser of Schneiderman's attorney general campaign last year, and the two both hail from the Upper West Side. I haven't heard any rumblings about Nadler running for higher office, but despite his own protestations, most political observers assume that Schneiderman will, like his predecessor before and his his predecessor before that, make a run for governor.

The event is at Le Parker Meridien and billed as "A Taste of the Eighth Congressional District." It is not for the faint of heart or the light of wallet: the fundraiser costs $250 to get in the door, and is asking for as much as $20,000.

"Well, obviously the president has made a limited engagement in Libya because of the humanitarian crisis," said Gillibrand, who noted the military action also had approval from the U.N., NATO allies and the Arab League. "His mission is to protect the innocent Libyan lives he can by enforcing a no-fly zone," she said.

Gillibrand did not definitely express support for what the president was doing, but merely reiterated what he has said publicly. She hinted at areas of concern, repeatedly referring to "limited" military engagement.

Rep. Nadler was more expansive in his remarks. He reiterated his skepticism about the president's stated goals, and complained about the lack of congressional approval for the action.

"I have not heard, have not seen the evidence that justifies our involvement in Libya so far," he said. "We are supposedly in Libya to prevent massacres. Well, maybe. I have not seen any evidence that there were going to be any massacres."

He said there was a civil war in that country, "but we don't involve ourselves in every civil war."

Nadler went on to say, "if there was a real necessity" for this action, "Congress should have been called back into session immediately." "But," he added, "I don't think it is right for the executive to have the untrammeled authority to start a war."

Before there were any follow-up questions following Nadler's remarks, Mayor Bloomberg announced the two lawmakers had other places to be. (All three were on hand to announce federal legislation to allow New York City and other local governments more authority in setting fuel standards for their taxis.)

President Obama is expected to discuss Libya during a televised speech tonight. 

An earlier effort was stripped out of omnibus transportation legislation stalled. It was included in the transportation reauthorization bill, but that bill didn't pass when Democrats controlled both chambers of the Congress two years ago.

Joining Bloomberg at City Hall this morning to discuss the latest effort were Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Congressman Jerry Nadler, both Democrats. Gillibrand, Nadler and Bloomberg said the money taxi drivers save on gasoline could be pumped into the local economy. 

The problem the legislation is likely to face is in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where new leadership has put a focus on scaling back many of the regulations pushed through when Democrats ran that chamber.

When asked about the chances of the bill getting through the Republican-controlled House, Nadler said, "We don't know at this point."

On one hand, he said, there was an openness for expanding "state's rights" among the new freshman Republicans. On the other hand, Nadler said Republicans "have shown themselves to be rather sensitive to lobbyists" and "interest groups, and that tends to be against the bill."

Gillibrand was more optimistic, saying the legislation is "very timely" considerubg the "volatility" in the Middle East, a major source of oil for the U.S. 

"It's the kind of idea you can build a consensus around," she said, because "it's pro-growth, addresses national security concerns of lessening our dependency on Middle Eastern oil."

That was Jerry Nadler, the liberal Democratic congressman, in an interview this weekend, referring to President Obama and the military intervention in Libya.

Those concerns were also raised on a conference call Saturday, where other liberals, like Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, raised constitutional questions about Mr. Obama's actions.

The tension is over who has the authority to declare war, the Congress, or the president? Nadler, and his colleagues, say had the president sought congressional approval before taking military action, many of the questions they now have could have been answered.

The split on Libya is also dividing liberal and conservative non-interventionists from liberal and conservative interventionists.

Hence John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, who have been harshly critical of the Obama administration for waiting several days before agreeing to participate in a multilateral military attack on the forces of Mohamar Qaddafi, are on the same side as Hillary Clinton and other Democrats who tend to regard Bill Clinton's decision to intervene in Bosnia as the height of enlightened humanitarianism.

"We did not lead this," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quoted saying this Sunday in the New York Times and other outlets. "We did not engage in unilateral actions in any way, but we strongly support the international community taking action against governments and leaders who behave as Qaddafi is unfortunately doing so now."

Nadler, who is generally a hawk on Israel, but who was also an early proponent of unilateral withdrawal from Iraq, doesn't buy the argument about multilateralism. "It doesn't matter that the U.S. is not taking the lead," said Nalder. "So what. We are still using U.S. military forces" and "the fact that other countries are doing it to are irrelevant. This act was unconstitutional."

French and British forces led the military assault in support rebel forces in Libya, who seek to depose President Qaddafi, whom President Obama has already said "needs to go." But Nadler said that the decision to pile in against the rebels could set a precedent for American forces taking action all over the place.

"If we're intervening for humanitarian reasons, why not the Ivory Coast or Darfur? Why here ?" he asked. "We cannot intervene at every situation."

"It's hard to see any vital national interest" in Libya, he said, referring to the constitutional powers a president has for using military force without the requisite consent of the congress beforehand.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, who has been broadly supportive of the steps taken in Libya, has warned of uncertainty about the mission.

"I do believe we must be a country that steps in to protect citizens from despotic leaders of their own country," Weiner said at a press conference this Sunday.  When I asked Weiner why there was intervention in Libya, versus other places facing political unrest, he said, "We haven't heard the president articulate that. It's been only a vague articulation from the president's cabinet."

He went on to repeat explanations he said came from the president's administration about why Libya was more suitable for U.S. military action: "that this was an achievable objective, making it different from other places around the world; this is something that there's a ready-made coalition, making it different than places like the Congo," he said.

"But that's a question a lot of members in Congress were asking," he said.

"Who are these rebels?" Mr. Nadler asked, referring to the soldiers on the ground in Libya. "Are they democratic, with a little d? Look at what we did in Afghanistan. We armed anti-Soviet forces, and we got the Taliban."

[Note: This item was slightly expanded from an earlier draft.]

Nadler:

"The President has an obligation under the Constitution to seek the approval of Congress for any use of military force unless there is an imminent threat to the United States or its allies.  Congress and the nation must have the opportunity to consider what is being proposed, what the potential implications of that action would be, and whether we, as a nation, wish to undertake the full consequences of that action.  The Constitution, rightly, does not allow a single person to commit the nation to war, even where there is a good reason to do so.  Where there is no imminent threat that does not allow for prior consideration, we must follow that process."

Update: A spokesman for Nadler emails to disagree with my characterization of the argument, saying, "this is not a squarely left versus right question, but rather one of congressional versus presidential authority. The power to declare war rests entirely with congress."

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was convicted on only one count--out of more than 280 brought against him--but Nadler and Weiner each hailed the process as a victory for civilian trials, and as proof that suspected terrorists could be tried safely in Lower Manhattan.

"The [Ghailani] trial was effective and transparent, with no security problems in the heart of Manhattan," Nadler said in a press release. "The world has seen that the American criminal justice system is both fair and relentless, just as it has been shown to be hundreds of times before, when terrorists were tried and convicted under both the Bush and Obama Administrations."

After the verdict, Weiner echoed Nadler's comments.

"This is a victory for the rule of law," Weiner said in a press release. "This was a skillful prosecution under difficult circumstances. And, in case no one noticed, the trial was held in Manhattan."

Earlier today, Weiner had some choice words for the Department of Justice, trying to rile them up on Twitter. 

"New nominee for most inept messaging by the Obama team : DoJ. Guys, you won! Act like it!" Weiner tweeted.

Nadler and Weiner have previously suggested that the trial of accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed might safely be held in Lower Manhattan, a view that puts them in opposition to a number of their colleagues. Both of New York's senators have opposed conducting that trial in New York, and last week, Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo and Attorney General-elect Eric Schneiderman both said the Department of Justice should hold the trial outside of the state. At a joint press conference, the two showed their hesitance but did not suggest alternative locations.

"I previously have said it shouldn't happen in New York City," Schneiderman said. "Now that I have to deal with it from a state-wide perspective, I am supportive of the governor's position."

Attorney General Eric Holder said last week that the Obama administration is "close" to reaching a decision on the location of the trial.

"I would hope that whatever the decision is would be one that would be judged on merit and that what is best for the case and for justice in that case will be the thing that will guide the decision," Holder said.

This morning, he repeated his warning during a press conference in the Bronx about waterfront development. Also there were Rep. Jerry Nadler and Rep. Jose Serrano, who later told reporters they support "progressive" taxation, which isn't exactly the same as taxing Wall Street, they said.

"It's not a question of bonuses. We believe in a progressive tax system," said Nadler. "There are people who are making a $1 million who should be paying more in taxes, proportionately, than people making $20,000."

"If New York happens to have a higher percentage of people making a million dollars than some place else, there's nothing wrong with saying those people are going to be taxed that way. And it is wrong to say, 'Well, this is hurting New York.' It's not hurting New York. We are lucky we have more rich people but we have to tax rich people more heavily than not-so-rich people."

"Today, the Supreme Court recklessly overturned a longstanding precedent protecting the integrity of our electoral process.  In this one act of judicial activism, the Court has increased the role of money in elections exponentially, corrupting the process even further.  I plan to chair a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in early February in order to explore the full impact of this decision.  I intend to examine the ways in which Congress might respond to ensure that our elections are not further corrupted by the influence of corporate money."

To liberals, it has been the reason for doing health care reform, an innovative tool that will break up private insurers’ monopolies and improve the cost and quality of care for everyone. To the right, it’s just socialism.

But on Tuesday night, faced with filibuster threats from Joe Lieberman and a handful of conservative Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his gang of 10 negotiators seemed to compromise the public option away. And more than a few liberals seem ready to go along with it. Bernie Sanders said the compromise “may be stronger” than the public option, and Howard Dean said it’s “what should have been done in the first place.”

Jerry Nadler isn’t so sure, though—and since the Senate’s bill will eventually have to be merged with the House’s bill, his opinion counts for a lot.

“The public option has certain purposes,” he said on Wednesday afternoon. “If those purposes are all satisfied somehow, some other way, we’d have to take a look at. If they weren’t, that would be a problem.”

It was just a few months ago that Nadler, a long-serving West Side Democrat, drafted a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threatening to oppose any legislation that didn’t include a “robust” public plan. Sixty of his fellow House Democrats signed it. Eventually, they compromised—a little—by voting for a final House bill that included a public option that didn’t link provider reimbursement rates to Medicare’s low levels.

But the new Senate compromise would throw the public option on the back burner; it would only be “triggered” if private insurers failed to create nonprofit plans (which would be administered by the same agency that runs the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program) for those who don’t qualify for group coverage. The other major feature is an expansion of Medicare—allowing some Americans to buy in at 55, instead of 65. It’s the Medicare part that has liberals like Sanders and Dean excited.

“The basic idea of allowing Medicare to go to people under 55 is a wonderful idea,” Nadler said. “Some of us have thought we ought to do that for a long time. But—and I hate to use this term—the devil is in the details.

“I mean, I gather that people are going to have to pay a premium for it. And the question is, how big is the premium, how affordable is it? There’ll have to be a Medigap plan, too, presumably. What’s the affordability? What are the subsidies? We have to look at all of that stuff before we can really talk intelligently about it.”

Nadler’s skepticism does seem warranted. The enthusiasm that some liberals are showing for the Medicare buy-in does seem to have a too-good-to-be-true element. On one level, expanding eligibility to 55-year-olds is a major step toward what the left has always wanted—a single-payer system, or “Medicare for all.” But if conservatives like Lieberman were ready to filibuster a public option (which, after all, would only have affected about 15 million Americans—at best), are they really about to sit back and let the country take a giant step toward universal Medicare?

When it comes to the nonprofit idea, Nadler is just confused. After all, both the Senate and House have always envisioned creating a health care exchange where private insurers—assuming they met basic standards established by the government—would be able to compete for business from individuals. The House wants one national exchange; the Senate wants 50 state exchanges.

Reid’s gang of 10, Nadler said, “seems to be saying, from what I’ve read, that where there isn’t enough competition, they’re going to the nonprofits on a national exchange within a state exchange. I’m not sure how that works. It’s not at all clear to me how that works.”

The idea of a trigger—which allows Reid to claim that he hasn’t actually dealt away the public option—isn’t fooling Nadler, either. “If you have the votes to stop the public option, then presumably you’re not setting up a trigger that’s on a hairspring that’ll trigger right away,” he said. “You’re setting up a trigger that will never trigger, or that will trigger only due to unusual circumstances.”

The House passed its health care bill last month with just two votes to spare. The 39 Democrats who voted “no” were mainly moderates and conservatives; Nadler and his progressive colleagues almost all supported it. But that could change in Round Two—especially without a public option.

This helps explain why some on the Senate side (and maybe even in the White House) are floating the idea of bypassing the usual House-Senate conference committee and forcing the House to vote up or down on the Senate’s plan. Essentially, a Democrat like Nadler would be forced to choose between a bill he played no role in crafting and killing health care altogether.

Nadler called that “totally unacceptable.”

“Have we all been wasting our time and energy for the last eight months?” he asked. “We should just wait for the Senate to do what they want?”

Still, he’s optimistic that a deal with the Senate can be struck and that a bill can be on President Obama’s desk soon.

“If [the Senate] can actually pass a bill before Christmas, we can conference it and pass it before the end of January—assuming that the houses weren’t totally at loggerheads for some reason,” he said. “Hopefully, we wouldn’t be.”

A formal announcement is expected today from the Gillibrand campaign, but Tonko publicly declared his support for Gillibrand at a fund-raiser this weekend in Latham, according to several attendees and confirmed by Dan McCoy, chairman of the Albany County Democratic Committee.

"He introduced her and said he would be doing everything he could to help her election," McCoy told me by phone. The event, at Michael's Banquet House in Latham, raised money for the committee's efforts. Tonko and Gillibrand also appeared together at a roundtable in Schenectady on Saturday.

Tonko is one of a few members of the delegation who had yet to back Gillibrand--he becomes the 19^th member of New York's House delegation to endorse the junior senator, one week after she won a key nod from Jerry Nadler, whose support indicated acquiescence to Gillibrand's candidacy by liberals.

Tonko told me in June that a formal endorsement of Gillibrand would come "soon." He represents the House district adjacent to Gillibrand's old district. It's unclear why he did not make a public endorsement earlier.