Redefining War Powers
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in Congress, WarA bipartisan study group tasked with considering changes to the way congress approves wars, is recommending increased congressional responsibility. The group, co-chaired by former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher, are proposing “legislation that would require the president to consult lawmakers before initiating combat lasting longer than a week, except in cases of emergencies.â€
A New York Times editorial by the co-chairmen lays out the details.
Simply, the 1973 War Powers Resolution is ineffective and possibly unconstitutional and we need better legislation. We also need a better balance of power, not only to check the Executive Branch but to make sure the Legislative Branch takes the appropriate responsibility for our wars both large and small. It’ll be interesting to hear what the presidential candidates think of this proposal.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 8th, 2008 and is filed under Congress, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Maybe the right the thing to do. But where is the leader or potential leader who can talk about a Global Strategy that would encompass America’s long term approach to globalization and terrorism which would create a framework for foreign policy and this proposal as one of many specific actions? Promoting this in a vacuum of chaos is like building a fence on the Mexican border, or throwing money at education. It’s all we get out of “leadership” and campaigns.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:42 am
The one surefire way for Congress to have ended the war was to cut off money for combat operations — a step most Democrats weren’t willing to make because they feared doing so would have hurt troops in harms’ way, or at least be perceived by voters that way.
Heh. I think that nails it–they would like a way to do what they don’t have the stones to do when it involves potential electoral damage to themselves.
Message to Congress–Grow spines, ya limp weenies.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:33 am
After further review of the actual proposal…
My opinion hasn’t changed. The WPA was always unconstitutional, though it’s nice to see a few Congressional Democrats finally acknowledging that after 35 years. Attempts to re-write it to give some in Congress what they want it will almost certainly result in either more unconstitutional statutes, or utterly ineffective and pointless legislation.
Essentially the study group is just advocating resetting the WPA to have the same flaws re-argued by phrasing them differently, and the impetus seems to be that Congress is mad it can’t do what it wants to do (overrule and micro-manage the inherent C-in-C war powers) on a simple majority vote. Tough cookies, limp weenies.
Bottom line remains that both Congress and the White House are limited by inherent Constitutional authorities. The idea that Congress could write a War Powers Act (“better legislation”) that would give them electoral cover to hide behind and that would pass constitutional muster is wishful thinking on their part. Short of constitutional amendment nothing will really change there.
Congress already has the tools it needs to do what it wants. Those tools require mustering veto-proof majorities, and the spine to pull funding from troops in the field. The latter requirement pretty much guarantees that the former will be very hard to meet.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
“A bipartisan study group tasked with considering changes to the way congress approves wars, is recommending increased congressional responsibility.”
I would be happy with ANY congressional responsibility. You know? as in congress actually doing oversight as is within their purview and in fact is required of them. Instead they sat by, voted for war and waited to see what would happen. Once things went south they all acted like they were duped. In reality the only people dooped were the American people. Meanwhile, everyday our civil liberties are further eroded om the name of “The War on Terrorism.” And the congress continues to rubber stamp these heretical violations in exchange for political wrangling and quid pro quos.
FISA was created for people like Bush, yet the congress steps aside and allows “minor changes” to its application. I.e. they de-fanged it altogether. This president like presidents before him have taken egregious liberties with the so-called war making powers. Powers the founding fathers would never have agreed to. They were staunch anti-monarchist. Yet that is what we have in all but name.