“Put War Powers Back Where They Belong”

[nerdgirl 0]

The National War Powers Commission have proposed the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009 as one means to help clarify who does the Constitution say has the power to initiate and end wars. The intention of the Act is to … depending on one’s perspective … either restore the Constitutionally intended ‘checks and balances’ for committing the US to armed conflict or limit executive power. Most concisely it proposes that Congress has to vote within 30 days before the US enters into an armed conflict; what constitutes an armed conflict is defined more precisely that in the US Constitution.

Authorized by Congress, the National War Power Commission is a bipartisan endeavor by coordinated/facilitated as a private entity by the University of Virginia, with Stanford, Rice Univ, and the College of William and Mary. The Commission is co-chaired by two former Secretaries of State James Baker (in Pres GHW Bush’s administration, who was also Pres. Reagan’s Chief of Staff) and Warren Christopher (in Pres Clinton’s administration). Other members of the Commission include former R Lee Hamilton (who chaired the Iraq Study Group), former AG Ed Meese, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, former Sen Slade Gorton, Carla A. Hills, former Secretary of the Army John O. Marsh, Jr., former US District Court Chief Judge Abner J. Mikva, former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet J. Paul Reason, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Strobe Talbott.

The full recommendations are being released this morning (soon) in a press conference at the Capitol.

In an Op-Ed, published in today’s NY Times, “Put War Powers Back Where They Belong,” Baker and Christopher outline the proposed War Powers Consultation Act of 2009.

“Our Constitution ambiguously divides war powers between the president (who is the commander in chief) and Congress (which has the power of the purse and the power to declare war). The founders hoped that the executive and legislative branches would work together, but in practice the two branches don’t always consult. And even when they do, they often dispute their respective powers.

“Our proposed new law, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009, does not pretend to resolve the underlying constitutional issues — only a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision could do that. It would reserve the ability of both Congress and the president to assert their constitutional war powers. In drawing up the statute we focused on a common theme that almost all past proposals shared: the importance of meaningful consultation between the president and Congress before the nation is committed to war.

“Our proposed statute would provide that the president must consult with Congress before ordering a ‘significant armed conflict’ — defined as combat operations that last or are expected to last more than a week. To provide more clarity than the 1973 War Powers Resolution, our statute also defines what types of hostilities would not be considered significant armed conflicts — for example, training exercises, covert operations or missions to protect and rescue Americans abroad. If secrecy or other circumstances precluded prior consultation, then consultation — not just notification — would need to be undertaken within three days.

“To guarantee that the president consults with a cross section of Congress, the act would create a joint Congressional committee made up of the leaders of the House and the Senate as well as the chairmen and ranking members of key committees. These are the members of Congress with whom the president would need to personally consult. Almost as important, the act would establish a permanent, bipartisan staff with access to all relevant intelligence and national-security information.

“Congress would have obligations, too. Unless it declared war or otherwise expressly authorized a conflict, it would have to vote within 30 days on a resolution of approval. If the resolution of approval was defeated in either House, any member of Congress could propose a resolution of disapproval. Such a resolution would have the force of law, however, only if it were passed by both houses and signed by the president or the president’s veto were overridden. If the resolution of disapproval did not survive the president’s veto, Congress could express its opposition by, for example, using its internal rules to block future spending on the conflict.”

Long overdue?
Or limitation on the ability of the President and the Executive Branch to respond in time of national crisis?

When the 1973 War Powers Resolution Act was passed there was a great deal of concern w/r/t the latter, particularly how it would impact the armed forces. How those concerns, real and more rhetorical, played out should be an informative comparative case study.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Long overdue?
Or limitation on the ability of the President and the Executive Branch to respond in time of national crisis?

Definitly LONG overdue

The Bush Doctrine has been a disaster in its implementation. Wars of convenience need to be avoided in the future. We as a nation have been ill served by the people that were put into power in the legislative branch. I want ANY future actions to get a full and TRUTHFUL hearing by our elected representatives before sending off our countrymen to nation build at the whims of a group of greedy despots.

[kelpdiver 2]

Marg, if Congress won't even try to enforce the WPA via the courts, how will this Congress appointed committee do any better? The White House shows little interest in giving up it's leadership here.

An Obama Presidency could accept the terms, but nothing would prevent the next Bush or Clinton from blowing it off again, short of court resolution, it appears.

[lawrocket 3]

Very, very long overdue. I.e., this should have been passed no later than 1974.

It's time for Congress to grow some anatomy. Over the last few decades, Congress has given more and more power to the executive. Hey - the POTUS can take the fall if this doesn't work out.

And the POTUS never has any issue with taking powers.

Bring the Congress back in on it. Though it appears they would have voted for this war, anyway.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Para_Frog 1]

I would vote long overdue if our Congress was worth a shit. I don't trust those retards with providence over the issue of water pistols.

Their approval rating is lower than POTUS. And that's saying something.

In a better political environment (read competent) the proposed WPA from the Baker/Christopher Commission is the way to go.

“Congress would have obligations, too. Unless it declared war or otherwise expressly authorized a conflict, it would have to vote within 30 days on a resolution of approval."

Brilliant. Force the vote up or down, then get the hell out of the way. I can work with that.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Their approval rating is lower than POTUS. And that's saying something.

Not really. What's the approval rating of your two senators and your Represenative? 90% of the time, it will be higher than the value for all of Congress. People like their own reps, but hate Congress.

[mnealtx 0]

This is necessary, why?

If Congress doesn't "approve" of a military deployment, then they don't fund it...pretty much 'case closed' at that point.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,080]

>If Congress doesn't "approve" of a military deployment, then they don't fund it...

Resulting in lots of dead soldiers as they run out of money for ammunition, logistics support etc. Not an option.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>If Congress doesn't "approve" of a military deployment, then they don't fund it...

Resulting in lots of dead soldiers as they run out of money for ammunition, logistics support etc. Not an option.

It's *still* a "check and balance".

Edit: The same sort of argument could be used in reverse - Congress preventing the President from quickly deploying the military to prevent an attack, etc...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,080]

>Congress preventing the President from quickly deploying the military to >prevent an attack, etc...

I saw nothing in the bill that would prohibit the president from ordering the military to repel an attack.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

This is necessary, why?

If Congress doesn't "approve" of a military deployment, then they don't fund it...pretty much 'case closed' at that point.

The past year plus has shown how false that is. Actually, it was proven a century ago by TR and the great white fleet. The threat of Congress not to fund has no value once the asset has been deployed.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

This is necessary, why?

If Congress doesn't "approve" of a military deployment, then they don't fund it...pretty much 'case closed' at that point.

Not a good idea. It results in putting the troops "over there", and then Congress has to be the assholes who are not giving them the $ they need to do the job or survive.

The decision should be made carefully, before troops are deployed.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[mnealtx 0]

So we have the same people that are saying that "Bush didn't do enough" to prevent 9/11 saying that there needs to be even MORE delay in the system? Doesn't make sense.

Congress already has 2 ways to counter use of military force by the President - they can refuse to authorize use of force and they can refuse to fund continued use of force.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,080]

>?Congress already has 2 ways to counter use of military force by the President . . . .

They really have one primary way, the way that is called out in the Constitution. They can refuse to declare war. That should prevent a war.

That provision of the Constitution has been ignored by several presidents; this bill is a way to bring that control (partially, at least) back to Congress.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

This is necessary, why?

If Congress doesn't "approve" of a military deployment, then they don't fund it...pretty much 'case closed' at that point.

If one supports increases in Executive Power … as has been exercised since President Truman … then there is no problem, and the proposed changes are not "necessary."

In addition to the pragmatic reality that [kelpdiver] cited that the 1973 War Powers Act is ineffective, it may be unconstitutional (as Pres Nixon and Pres GHW Bush asserted). As [lawrocket] cited, it’s never been challenged.

It’s a proposal for a law to close the Executive power loop-hole to get around the Constitutional requirement that established that only the Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war (Article 1) and the U.S. President has the power to wage war only after obtaining a declaration of war from the Congress (Article 2, “called into actual Service”). (Note: nothing about funding in that Constitutional conundrum.)


In addition to some of the pro-arguments put forth, parts that I find useful and important include
-- the requirement that the members of the proposed Joint Congressional Consultation Committee have access to intelligence related to an armed conflict;
-- defines what isn’t covered, e.g., training exercises, covert operations, or missions to protect and rescue Americans abroad, thereby not unduly limiting the power of the armed services and the foreign intelligence service to execute such operations;
-- it make Congress more accountable and is in alignment with the Powell Doctrine,
-- it promotes the rule of law.

My criticisms include that it doesn’t have enough metaphorical teeth and it creates a new Committee.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Para_Frog 1]

Quote

My criticisms include...

...it creates a new Committee.

VR/Marg

Amen sister.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[lawrocket 3]

I cannot say that the War Powers Act is Unconstitutional. Congress has the authority to delegate power to the executive branch. we see it all the time - the Code of Federal Regulations is a creation of the executive branch. Congress passes laws enabling the executive branch to come up with the individual regulations.

It's a definite power pass. Still, I think Congress wants nothing to do with that kind of responsibility.

My wife is hotter than your wife.