War Powers

[sailaway21]

Jim Baker and Warren Christopher, often misguided, have brought up a topic worth review in the NYT of all places.

The War Powers Act is an unconstitutional farce and needs to be replaced or discarded. Regardless of your political perspective it must be acknowledged that this ill-conceived act is useless in practise. Worse, it has led to a series of undeclared wars with questionable mandates. The President, every president, ignores it and the Congress is quite happy that he does so as it leaves them free to sit on the sidelines and take potshots while assuming no responsibility for anything. Something needs to be done. I'm not sure that I agree with all that Messrs. Baker and Christopher propose but it is a start on a discussion seriously needed. Herewith the proposed plan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/op...=1&ref=opinion

[PBzeer]

One has to ask, how often has legislation, designed to fix previous legislation, not turned out to be worse than the disease? The Incumbent Protection Act, errrrrrr, I mean Campaign Finance Reform comes to mind.

[camaraderie]

I believe the current law as well as the one proposed do not pass constitutional muster. What is needed is a new amendment that recognizes the nature of warefare and timeliness while preserving the intent of the founders not to make a "king" with warmaking powers. I believe this should be a non-partisan issue but a pressing one. With the disfavor over how the Iraq war has been initiated and prosecuted...perhaps the backing of McCain and Obama for a carefully worded amendment could brea the current impasse.
In terms of content, I would prefer a 60 day limit on unilateral presidential action followed by a required vote from both houses of congress with NO Presidential veto possible...a simple majority of the congress could continue or stop the military action. Provision would need to be made for orderly withdrawal of forces to minimize danger. The requirement for a congressional vote would allow no one to "hide" and everyone to be accountable for their decision while not hamstringing the president from decisive and timely action to protect the country.

[sailaway21]

Not bad, Cam but your no veto provision would also fail constitutional muster.

I'm inclined to support a greater willingness to invoke a declaration of war. Declarations of war do not have to be acted upon militarily, for instance I was in favor of declaring war on Iran during the hostage crisis in the 70's, but would leave the option on the table. Practically speaking, are we all but militarily at war with Iran even today?

Something surely needs to be done to sort out the ambiguity left by such matters as the Korean War being no more than a UN police action, which was perhaps the start of this euphemism trend.

Frankly, I think the president should have, and should in the future, simply go before Congress and ask for a declaration of war and then let the political chips fall where they may. With modern communications there should be no real problem in crafting additional legislation in allowing congressmen to vote on such a matter in a short and timely fashion. It could even be couched in the sixty day terms you desire. The advantage would be, as you say, a clear understanding that we are at war and that the Congress has said so.

All of which makes one's hair hurt to think how we've managed to get anything done in the past!

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Not bad, Cam but your no veto provision would also fail constitutional muster.

Ummm...I said constitutional amendment Sway...that would by its' very nature resolve the constitutional muster problem.

Actually I am currently reading a book by the rather liberal political science professor Larry Sabato "A More Perfect Constitution" which is highly commended to you. The War Powers Amendment (which I have modified a bit to suit my own preferences), is one of his suggestions.

You will find much to disagree with in the contents, but also much which makes sense. Sabato calls for a constitutional convention to bring the original up to date and correct structural imbalances. This would not be about crafting new amendments on controversial issues (abortion, gay rights, school prayer etc.) but rather dealing with the structure and processes of government. Lots of neat ideas and thorough discussion of each issue from all sides. Quite interesting.

[sailaway21]

Ah, my error or rather inattentive reading. Hmmm. Gotta dwell on that one.