Former Secretaries Of State: Scrap War Powers Resolution

WASHINGTON — 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 It says the 1973 resolution should be repealed and replaced with new legislation that would require the president to inform Congress of any plans to engage in "significant armed conflict," or non-covert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.

Baker, who served as secretary of s`tate 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.

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."

Story continues below

advertisement

McCain did not provide comment.

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.

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 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.

___

On the Net:

The Miller Center: http://www.millercenter.org/warpowers

Comments

[Gatormouth]

I really think it is a stretch to allow congress to delegate it's assigned powers under the Constitution anyway. This is especially true when you consider how they legislate. Falsifications of evidence, like in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or the Medicare Bill of 2004 with its false evidence UNDER OATH, and there is no review or penalty if the bill passes. If I was to lie in the creation of a contract I would expect the contract would not be allowed to stands simply because it had been signed. The contract would be null and voided, and I should be prosecuted for false statements. Our glorious representatives merely roll over. "shucks, you sure fooled me. No harm done".

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/medi-m31.shtml

Before you protest at the website, remember, sometimes you have to listen to your enemies for the things your "friends" won't tell you.

[Chrisle]

Question 1: if the President of the United States decides that to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons it is necessary to bomb certain nuclear facilities in Iran does he require prior congressional approval?

Question 2: what is the legal position of a member of the United States armed services who fails to transmit or carry out an order from his commander-in-chief to bomb Iran where there has been no prior congressional approval?

[MalamuteMan]

Answer 1: Yes (should be)

Answer 2: Good Question!!!

[Sundialsvc4]

Think about your "Question 1," Chrisle, and now think about Human Nature in the way that, say, James Madison did.

"War is worth millions of dollars a minute." War is the ultimate Power. The singular authority to Decide is the authority of the most-ruthless Dictators this world has known ... and they have appeared and wrought their destruction with great regularity throughout history.

Lurking behind every Dictator is always a Legislature AND a Court system that upholds that dictator's power. They usually do it for money.

So, think about it ... there's trillions of dollars worth of oil underneath the entire Middle East. They've all got weapons over there because American industries have been selling war-toys to BOTH sides and making more than a TRILLION dollars doing so.

The multi-millionaires who occupy the halls of Congress want to seize those things, and having spent so much money for so many nuclear bombs, they want to use those, too. ("World War Episode III: The Return of the Nukes.") But do they want to take responsibility for it? No. They want "the Decider" to do it and they want to wring their hands, feigning ineffectualness. Pretending to be "divided."

This is "the enemy within." This is "one if by land." The future of this Republic hangs by a thread. If we cannot or will-not interdict these criminals, the Republic will fall, just as all its predecessors did.

[darthdarcy]

Great thanks; Now you tell us....perf­ect...

[nanoscare]

As long as we have troops stationed in every other country across the world this idea is a non-starter.

[HouseOfRoberts]

Congress should already have the security clearance to view "highly classified information". We the people granted it to them when we elected them to represent us. Withholding information from Congress because it is classified is the reason we are in the mess we are today.

[Sundialsvc4]

Funny, isn't it. The Congress enacts the laws that define "classified," along with everything else.

The Congress "may meet in Secret when it may Chuse," to use the quaint spelling of the Supreme Law of the Land.

Congress did not WANT to know. It wanted an excuse. It still does.

Congress wants a flamboyant idiot "Decider" in the front room, with a Mafioso Don in the back room, both to deflect attention from the 'business' urgency of a gang of Senators and Congressmen ... and the Librarians of Congress record everything: http://thomas.loc.gov.

[Sarahjan]

Yes, it is about time the power of the executive branch of the state is clearly defined and its legal limits delineated in the clearest terms.

[mikestg]

What's the point of having the war powers act anyways if nobody is going to follow it? It is most likely unconstitutional to begin with. If Congress wants to reduce the ability of the commander in chief to conduct military operations it will have to amend the constitution.

[Charley2u]

They could simply dismantle the military, until it is limited to defense of the American territory. It doesn't take 1.5 million men, 5000 nuclear tipped missiles, and 13 aircraft carriers to do that.

[robetal]

Our Congress is by our Constition the only venue for declaring war. Nowhere is the Constitution clear on who ends the war in fact the Constition is detailed that the money used for excersizing can only be for two years. While the commander in cheif is to conduct the war, where does it say we need him to end it. In the story on the iraqui government demanding that we give them a timetable for withdrawel. We should demand that if they want us to stay they must provide oil for our troops. Why in the world we have to fund everything. The military wants an additional funding of 400 million dollars that is pure hogwash they must take the responsibilty of providing our troops with oil at the same price as their own troops pay, we are training their troops .

[BBackSoon]

Fat change getting any kind of saddle on this Bushco colt.

[billu]

The conflict is that the President is the Commander in Chief and can order military action. You can have military action without war. This is the grey area, at what point does the congress need to step in.

It's not an easy point as you can't have congress micromanage the miitary and you can't have the president do what he wants. That is the reason for War-Powers. It obviously needs tweaking.

[CaptainObvious]

"The conflict is that the President is the Commander in Chief and can order military action."

Please re-read the constitution, and tell me where it says he can order military action. It doesn't: this power is reserved exclusively for the Congress. The Founding Fathers were quite adamant about this point, and wisely so:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."
--James Madison

"You can have military action without war. This is the grey [sic] area, at what point does the congress need to step in."

Neither the Founding Fathers nor the Constitution make a distinction between 'military action' and 'war'. This 'gray area' was manufactured by warmongering proponents of the unConstitutional War Powers Act, and under this law, it has become the 'exception that swallows the rule'. Tell me: when was the last time we had a Declaration of War?

[billu]

The last declaration of war was WWII. Korea and Vietnam were non war military actions entered into by the democratic presidents.

Every president has issued military attacks without war being declared. The president can order an attack because he is the commander in chief. That's the constitution.

[gulopartisan]

There is an excellent book on the Constitution and war, To Chain the Dogs of War, by Constitutional lawyer Ed Firmage, that makes it painstakingly clear that Congress has abrogated its obligation to engage with the Executive on war. The artery began bleeding with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and we are bleeding out while Congress sits on its hands.

[Charley2u]

Google NSC-68...t­hat was the beginning, not Tonkin. It was in effect secretly before Tonkin.

[kjdwyer]

You know we've swung a little too far to the right when James Baker represents the "oppositio­n."

[drauz]

Declaration of War is clearly defined in the Constitution - too bad no one reads, much less obeys, that passe document.