You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Panel calls for new war powers legislation
2008-07-08
The next time the president goes to war, Congress should be consulted and vote on whether it agrees, according to a bipartisan study group chaired by former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher.

In a report released Tuesday, the panel says the current law governing the nation's war powers has failed to promote cooperation between the executive and legislative branches. It says the 1973 resolution should be repealed and replaced with new legislation that would require the president to inform Congress of any plans to engage in 'significant armed conflict,' or non-covert operations lasting longer than a week. In turn, Congress would act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving the action.
Hah. Right.
Baker, who served as secretary of state in the first Bush administration and co-chaired the 2006 Iraq Study Group, said the proposal isn't intended to resolve constitutional disputes between the White House and Congress on who should decide whether the nation fights. 'What we aim to do with this statute is to create a process that will encourage the two branches to cooperate and consult in a way that is both practical and true to the spirit of the Constitution,' Baker said in a statement.
And I'm sure it will work as well as history indicates.
Optimist.
A new joint House and Senate committee would be established to review the president's justification for war. To do so, the committee would be granted access to highly classified information.

The panel has briefed the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, as well as congressional leadership. Spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama commends the panel 'for advocating that the president consult Congress more closely on issues of critical national importance like the use of military force.' McCain did not provide comment.
But I'll bet he rolled his eyes.
Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force President Bush to end the war. While Congress had authorized combat in Iraq, Democrats said the resolution approved only the invasion and not a five-year counterinsurgency.

After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. While they lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's right as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedence.

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 take because they feared doing so would have hurt troops in harms' way, or at least be perceived by voters that way.
Yeah, I guess 'at least be perceived' is technically accurate.
Which makes all their other posturing about this rather gutless, since they lack the courage of their so-called convictions.
The plan identified by Baker and Christopher, who served as secretary of State under President Clinton, would not necessarily resolve such issues in the future. But it would create a consultative process between the White House and Congress that currently does not exist. Also, calling on Congress to respond would exert significant political pressure on a president if he ignored lawmakers' wishes.
The consultative process does exist: no President will go to war without talking to Congress. Bush talked with them extensively before we went into Iraq. He got a resolution. He's been talking with them extensively since then, though he and the Dhimmis don't agree.
The panel studied the issue for more than a year and consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state. The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia sponsored the study.
So much for being able to carry a big stick if this stoopid idea sticks, which I don't think it will. The founding fathers set things up the way they did for a reason. Sometimes it takes a king to get things done.
Posted by:gorb

#2  And anuther one it is for 2008-2012 - MADONNA WINS AGAIN!
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-07-08 22:09  

#1  I thought Congress did that last time... and voted yes. At least Candidate Obama goes on about something like that.
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-07-08 19:56  

00:00