News

Plan Offered to Revamp War Powers Act

»

by: John M. Broder, The New York Times

photo
Former Secretaries of State Warren Christopher and James A. Baker III oversaw a year-long study into the tension over war powers between the executive and legislative branches.
(Photo: Getty Images)

    Washington - Two former secretaries of state have declared the War Powers Resolution of 1973 obsolete and proposed a new system of closer consultation between the White House and Congress before American forces go into battle.

    Their proposal would require the president to consult lawmakers before initiating combat lasting longer than a week except in rare cases requiring emergency action. Congress, for its part, would have 30 days to approve or disapprove of the military action.

    The plan would create a new committee of Congressional leaders and relevant committee chairmen, with a full-time staff with access to military and intelligence material. The president would be required to consult with the group in advance of any extended strike.

    Secretaries of State Warren Christopher and James A. Baker III oversaw a year-long study of the longstanding tension over war powers between the executive and legislative branches. In a report to be released on Tuesday, they concluded that the 1973 law, which was passed in the waning days of the Vietnam War and which aimed to limit the president's ability to commit American forces to war unilaterally, never served its intended function and must be replaced.

    In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Tuesday,, Mr. Christopher, who served under former President Bill Clinton, and Mr. Baker, who served under the first President Bush, wrote that the 1973 act is "ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst. No president has recognized its constitutionality, and Congress has never pressed the issue. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on its constitutionality."

    "As a consequence," they wrote, "the 1973 statute has been regularly ignored - a situation that undermines the rule of law, the centerpiece of American democracy."

    Presidents since Jefferson have asserted the right to commit troops to battle when they deem it in the national interest. Congress has the power under the constitution to declare war and control spending on military actions, but it has seldom exercised it. The new legislation is designed to clarify when and for how long presidents can act unilaterally.

    The question has arisen repeatedly in the context of the Iraq war. In 2002, President Bush sought and received Congressional authorization for military action to enforce United Nations weapons sanction. Since then, however, many members of Congress have claimed that he has exceeded that authority and have tried repeatedly to limit the scope of the war and impose a timetable for withdrawal of troops. All of those efforts have failed.

    In 2007, several senators, including Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, tried to repeal the 2002 war authorization. They also fell short.

    In a Republican presidential debate last October, Senator John McCain, the likely Republican presidential candidate, said he would take military action without going to Congress first, "if the situation is that it requires immediate action to ensure the security of the United States of America."

    "That's what you take your oath to do when you're inaugurated as president," Mr. McCain said. But he also said that he would seek the approval of Congress if there were time to assess the threat and debate possible courses of action.

    Mr. Baker and Mr. Christopher led a commission of former policymakers and constitutional experts to study the war powers question. The group included former Democratic Representative Lee Hamilton, who was a co-chairman with Mr. Baker of the Iraq Study Group in 2006, whose recommendations for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq were largely ignored by President Bush. Other members of the panel were former Republican Senator Slade Gorton of Washington, former Secretary of the Army John O. Marsh Jr., former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott.

»


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live.

One thing I find continually

One thing I find continually puzzling when the various "potentially unconstitutional" laws are being enacted is the obvious way that they can be struck down. Just look at how the ban on liquer back in the 20's worked for your PROPER blueprint on how the Constitution works. Congess voted to ban the consumption of alcohol. When they decided it was a bad idea and the ban should be struck down; they did NOT pass another ammenedment saying "you can drink". What they had to do was pass an ammendment REPEALING the existing ammendment against alcohol. The Bill Of Rights cannnot be overridden by the passing of a law that says "we can now do this". It can ONLY be overridden by Congress passing an ammendment to the Constitution REPEALING the Bill Of Rights. Until and unless Congress does that, any and ALL laws/ammendments, etc. containing clauses which violate any of those rights is unconstitutuinal and would (in my humble opinion) be immediately struck down by the US Supreme Court should they presented to them for consideration under such an arguement.

I think the point here as

I think the point here as clarified by many posts is "Congress has the power under the constitution to declare war and control spending on military actions, but it has seldom exercised it." The Constitution already dictates that Congress has the only power to declare war and most importantly its holds the purse strings. Instead of writing yet another law that just dilutes the already established powers the Congress holds how about not appropriating any funds for wars that are not declared in the proper and legal fashion such as the 2 current ones that are still funded and the looming one with Iran. This new law feels more like a wolf in sheep's clothing and will have the opposite effect by clearly stating "would require the president to consult lawmakers before initiating combat lasting longer than a week except in rare cases requiring emergency action. Congress, for its part, would have 30 days to approve or disapprove of the military action." What this sounds like to me is that a President can commit troops without the proper authorization and can do so up to 5 weeks considering the time table set forth for approval or disapproval. It also floats the very obtuse definition of "emergency action." What does this exactly mean? So instead of strengthening the current Constitutional arrangement they are creating a loophole in it. Even a week of troop commitment on foreign soil would be incredibly difficult to dissolve or revoke since just like the issue currently in Iraq and Afghanistan troop security and staying the course or fixing what we already started would be touted as justifications to the people. The power to Declare war already exists entirely in the legislative branch and needs only be used or reinforced by actions taken within this branch. Blank checks, votes of no confidence and creating a new law in hindsight does not rectify the total and complete illegality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of bandying about a new law use the current ones and force impeachment hearings or restrict the flow of moneys going to these illegal wars. I think even if this endeavor is well intentioned it takes away from the fact that the current wars being fought are in total violation of many existing laws and as such there are many routes currently available to force their dissolution.

The Constitution of the U.S.

The Constitution of the U.S. Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; The way I read it none of this matters at all The president isn't the commander in chief until congress calls him into actual service by declaring war. It will take the Supreme Court to say so though. Until then the president will act like he has the power to take the country to war. Congress went the wrong way trying to stop the war. They should have filed suit in Federal court charging that war had not been declared and therefore Bush had no power as commander in chief. If they had we wouldn't have had Abu Graib and Guantanamo and domestic spying etc.

The War Powers Act of 1973

The War Powers Act of 1973 was incorporated into each of the Authorizations for Use of Military Force in 2001 for the 'War on Terror' and again in 2002 for the 'War in Iraq'. The reason for this current need to do something is purely for political CYA. The War Powers Act requires "CLEAR" , meaning truthful, "circumstances" and "situations". As with the original need for a war powers act back in 1973, the untruthful Gulf of 'Tonkin "incident", the current non-existent WMD threat, and excuse du jour situation, resulting in an embarrassing video of the President at the compliant media dinner, remember "Those Weapons of Mass Destruction have gotta be somewhere..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0TnqUlB4Gg Here's a novel suggestion: instead of pretexts for war, how about just being truthful in the first place.

"Congress has the power

"Congress has the power under the constitution to declare war..." seems to miss the point that this power is reserved to the legislative branch, not the executive. A revamped war powers act ought to reaffirm this notion, not dilute it.

That Ed Meese was on the

That Ed Meese was on the panel tells you something about this bunch. Nixon claimed to not be a crook, but Meese surely was. Not a problem for this possee.

What a tremendous waste of

What a tremendous waste of time and energy in avoiding the obvious! The Constitution clearly provides that for the US to go to war, Congress must declare war, after which the executive (Commander in Chief of military forces) must direct it. Congressional "resolutions" are not acceptable substitutes for a constitutional declaration of war, and for the president to deploy US forces in other than short term emergencies without a declaration of war is a violation of the constitution. This is not rocket science. It's about two branches of politicians trying to evade the plain words of the constitution.

What a joke. As if this is

What a joke. As if this is going to stop the US government from using its military however it sees fit. Presidents have routinely ignored the War Powers Act since its inception. Why would they pay attention to a new law? If this law were on the books in 2002, would it have changed the Afghanistan and Iraq wars? Not at all: Congress voted overwhelmingly to support both actions and they continue to vote overwhelmingly to fund their continuation. This is just a gimick by a couple of establishment officials to rehabilitate the US's image and the "rule of law" which they claim to cherish. This proposal of theirs would do nothing to prevent future wars or keep the US from trying to dominate the rest of the planet with its bloated military.