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 It says the 1973 resolution should be repealed and replaced with new legislation that would require the president to inform Congress of any plans to engage in "significant armed conflict," or non-covert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

Story continues below

advertisement

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.

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

[RRK70]

We don't need new laws, we need new politicians that respect the laws we already have! Look at campaign finance "reform". There will always be ways to circumvent the law, what we need are representatives in all 3 branches of government that have respect for Constitution.

[Sundialsvc4]

"Every just view that can be taken of this subject admonishes the public of the necessity of a rigid adherence to the fundamental doctrine of the constitution, that the power to declare war including the power of judging of the causes of war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature: that the executive has no right in any case to decide the question whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."

"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. The trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man. War is ... the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war a physical force is to be created, and it is the executive will ... to direct it. In war the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast, ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace." [...]

-- James Madison

[memphispaul]

As a war veteran and 100% disabled veteran the idea that members of congress are afraid of how the folks back home will view them if they cut off war funding is the most lame, weak kneed pile of dung I have ever thought would ever pollute our beloved republic.
Congress has been reduced to a group of driveling fools incapable of making a sound decision or summoning the intestinal fortitude to excetcise their powers as they abdicate the rights of all.
What a complete waste of a grand experiment and the sacrifices of the many citizens that have given their all to help thus nation progress.
All for not as the current crop of "leaders" are anything but.

[lizr]

this is rich coming from Baker who was instrumental in bullying W's way into power.

He gets the bozo in who destroys our country, and now he wants to lock the barn door.

Amusing if in a very dark way.

[zendem1]

When Cheney and Baker worked for Poppy, Baker couldn't stand Cheney. Baker thought Cheney was a real sicko(and probably still does.) All of this stripping away of Congressional power that's been going on in this pathetic excuse for an Administration,comes from Cheney, Addington and Yoo.
So yea, it is odd, considering Baker handled the 2000 Supreme Court Presidential appointment. But even Baker didn't know then Poppy's alcoholic, illiterate son would be this bad.

[outnow]

The process itself of decision-making about going to war is flawed, as experience has shown. The Constitution is clear enough as to war powers and the power of the purse of Congress to fund a war. In practice, however, and in light of the war of choice scenarios presented after WW II, the last "declared" war.

Congress wants to avoid its duty to declare war. Hearings should precede the decision whenever possible. Actual evidence should be presented - not just drawings like Gen. Powell presented at the UN prior to the invasion of Iraq.

The "authorization to use force" should be withdrawn because a war on terror is too vague to be intelligible. Who is the enemy. It turns out that more civilians have died in this GWOT proportionately than in prior wars. In WW I it was about 17% civilian deaths. WW II had about 67% civilian deaths. The Iraq war is about 85 - 95% civilian deaths.

[Roko]

In one Dennis Wheatley novel the president of a fictional country was required by law to commit suicide in order to declare war on another country. The suicide was intended to be indicate that the situation is grave enough to send others to die. How I wished that country to be the USA!

[TovSquirrel]

I thought it was congress (a curse upon their house!) that declared war. The president can only ask for it.

But the War Powers Act (unconstitutional BS if ever there was) let congress side-step their responsibilities.

[Marlyn]

"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" ???

Seriously? Is this a credible argument?

[Sundialsvc4]

It is an Unconstitutional argument.

The "right of the President as commander in chief to protect the nation" is severely and deliberately checked in the "blee-blee piece of paper" as written, which is precisely why the war-lords want to condemn it as "a blee-blee piece of paper" and not the Supreme Law Of The Land.

George Bush wants to be King. Or Dictator. And, lurking right behind him in the jump-seat, is DEFINITELY such a man ... a mere bullet away from the throne should the need arise. And, within the very Halls of Congress, there are more men who want to enjoy this Unconstitutional power without being fingered for it.

THIS is the greatest peril our nation has ever faced, and "Ike" Eisenhower clearly saw it coming. It is "The Enemy Within." "One if by land."

[lthuedk_1]

We are headed towards a second War of Independence, and these two former Secretary's of State know it.

When the government is no longer responsive to the will of the People, the People must take it back directly and reform from scratch. Congress should have declared war on the Bush dictatorship, but it refused. The junta's crimes against both the Constitution and the world community have placed the People in an untenable position. And our representatives don't seem to appreciate the growing rage against a dysfunctional system that has descended into uselessness.

It's time to hit F5.

I think Philadelphia would be an appropriate place to hold the Constitutional Convention. Would one million armed citizens surrounding the proceedings be sufficient for protection?

Congress should have acted forcefully in 2001 and not allowed our country to self-destruct. It knew or should have known we had been overthrown. It's time for a Congressional enema.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/americas_shame.html

[Sundialsvc4]

The Constitution still works. Obviously, amendments need to be added to it, but remember this ...

"Thugs know all about War. They know all about Violence." There are always mercenaries who will stand behind a crime-lord, and if there are mercenaries running amok in the Middle East, you can be sure they're here too.

If you want to resist, and to implement change, you don't give them what they want. Instead, you use Peace. You force the United States Constitution to actually Be the "Supreme Law of the Land." And you do this under the umbrella of the Constitution itself.

You turn on all the lights in the kitchen and start stomping rats and roaches.

The fact that we are a nation of 300 million Plaintiffs, fighting against the unholy influence of less-than-a-thousand organized criminals whom we call "Senator," "Your Honor," "Mister President," and "Mister Justice," is becoming more-and-more obvious by the day. AT LAST. But insurrection, appealing though it might be, is not the way to cope with hoodlums who are so-seriously outnumbered.

[ouroborous]

Yeah... I kinda agree with you. I wonder what form it will take, and who will be the Minutemen?

[lizr]

I was thrilled when Pe lo si got in. I have never been more disappointed or disgusted in my life.

[demfriend]

The Constitution says that Congress must be given the vote on the wars and Bush side stepped and lied so much there wasn't any way the truth would have come out unless Congress actually investigated but the Republicans held all of the cards. We should all take the time to re- read the Constitution and send via email to every single person in Congress to remind them of their duties to it and to us the citizens. I believe every person and every Congress person for sure should read the COnstitution and the Bill Of Rights yearly to refresh ourselves in the language and what these people are supposed to be doing in our name and for our country.

[Sundialsvc4]

It's not "The Republicans." It's not "The Democrats."

Here is the Karl Rove Principle in a nutshell:

"Divide and Conquer."

"A nation divided against itself will spend too much time fighting itself that they won't even notice you as you steal every thing that they own."

"If you present Reality as sufficiently unpalatable, the plebes will accept at face-value whatever more-appealing 'reality' you offer them."

http://thomas.loc.gov is a fantastic resource, courtesy of the Librarians of Congress ... but what you will find there is not pleasant. You'll find nearly-unanimous votes, cut right across party lines. You'll find "so-called candidates" that look and vote identically ... when they're not too-busy campaigning to show up for a vote. (They showed-up for the War votes, though.)

"Houston, we have a problem."

[sugarmoes]

so... no "heckuva job bushie"????

[lthuedk_1]

Don't be shy: End the dictatorship. C'mon Congress, you can say it: End the dictatorship.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/the_joy_of_a_dictatorship.html

[Sarahjan]

mikestg

yes, given how GWB used the war measures act, the congress must amend the Constitution to delimit the power of the President of the United States to declare war.

[Sundialsvc4]

It already -is- delimited.

Congress never did "declare war."

And that is a major part of the problem. The people who swore to "uphold the Constitution," in any and in all(!) of the three Branches of Government, did not do so.

We know what the problem is. "Ike was right."

[Bigtexxx]

Lovely pile of bipartisan horsecrap. Oh yes, the time to rein in presidential powers is...when a Democrat is poised to win the White House!! Where was this marvelous idea when Attila the Chimp was unilaterally deciding to stomp through the Middle East?

While they're at it, maybe Baker and Christopher can bust a move on doing away with presidential signing statements that undermine the intent of laws. And secret energy task forces. And...oh forget it.

[lizr]

LOL- you got it ~ a masterpiece of timing.

[Halcyon]

These guys are a little older than me but back then we had this class in jr. high school called

CIVICS

I don't know if it is taught any more. However, it is obvious these two guys must have been shooting spitballs at each other when the teacher discussed war....and we had just finished one (1949-50 for me). AND THERE WAS A DRAFT.

It goes like this, Warren and Jim, Congress tells the President what to do and the President (Executor, NOT Decider) does it.

So with that simple paradigm in mind, fellows, here is how the Constitution, not you or me or guys in the White House, 'does' war in the USA: Congress declares it and the President AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF (only after war has been declared, prior to that it is the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who make 'large-scale' military decision in consort with Congress; for example, the budget, new weapons sytems, new aggregations of manpower, etc) carries out the Congressional order to make war.

So what's this business about shared power to declare war? nonsense!!! This is the kind of crap that belittles our Constitution, confuses government of the people-by the people-and FOR ALL the people (not just the hedge-fund contributors), confuses our troops, and emboldens our enemies (when they see us running around with our Constitutional heads cut off).

Go back to school, Chris and Jim, you have a few more years to get it right.

[Gatormouth]

"The Decider". I really hated it when he did that. "The President, with agreed upon duties and powers wasn't enough of a title. He had to make one up so he could get some more? Thats like Il using Duce, Der Fuhrer, or el Supremo!

[MalamuteMan]

El Supremo Estúpido