cawacko
Well-known member
Damo - thought of you when I saw this article.
War Powers Patch
July 25, 2008; Page A14
Commissions often come to life to solve problems seemingly beyond the reach of the political system. The latest is the National War Powers Commission led by former Secretaries of State James Baker and ****** Christopher. Their mission impossible: Give both the Presidency and Congress an exit from their endless struggles over the failed War Powers Act.
They and their commission partners have proposed the War Powers Consultation Act. Clearly, the central goal of this effort sits in its title -- consultation. Our fear, among many, is that the effort does little to solve another problem at the heart of this problem -- leaking. Indeed by our search, the word "leak" appears in the commission's report just once.
This new law would replace the War Powers Act of 1973, deemed unconstitutional by Presidents from both parties going back to Richard Nixon. The 1973 law is a relic of the scorched-earth politics of the Vietnam era. Messrs. Baker and Christopher dubbed the 1973 law "ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst" in a New York Times op-ed.
Under the proposed act, the President will have to meet with a new joint congressional committee made up of the House and Senate leaders, plus the chairs of various "key" committees. Consultation would occur whenever the U.S. engages in "significant armed conflicts," which are "combat operations that last or are expected to last more than a week." These operations exclude rescue efforts, covert missions and "acts of reprisal against terrorists." The proposal defines the two Iraq Wars as "significant armed conflicts," but President Reagan's air strikes against Libya are not.
The President will be required to file a report and meet with the committee every two months during the conflict. Also, this new joint committee gets a permanent staff with full access to intelligence and national-security information. Insofar as intel leaks have gushed forth during the Bush administration with the predictability of Old Faithful, what future President would agree to creating yet more open hydrants? We also doubt that the new joint committee gets past the familiar problem of a President having to negotiate with 535 congressional generals.
Under the proposal, Congress will have 30 days to authorize, approve or disapprove of the conflict, which the President can override with a veto.
Though a noble effort, this new law, like its 1973 predecessor, runs headlong into familiar constitutional roadblocks, and the commission acknowledges that. The fact remains that the Constitution clearly states that Congress has the right to declare war and the President has authority over the military. As always, if Congress disapproves of a conflict, it can use its two-thirds majority to override Presidential actions or cut its funding.
The core problem here lies beyond creating the gears and pulleys of a consultation mechanism. The extreme tension between the Presidency and Congress was born during the Vietnam War. After that, Congress's Democrats pulled leftward on military matters, away from party peers whose views of the U.S. role were shaped by World War II and the Cold War. In those more bipartisan days, Presidential consultation with Congress on such matters wasn't the train wreck it is now.
The Founders expected that the President and members of Congress would balance their separate responsibilities. The solution still lies there. It isn't an easy one, but it is more attainable than the mechanical path taken by the War Powers Commission.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121694467286683011.html
War Powers Patch
July 25, 2008; Page A14
Commissions often come to life to solve problems seemingly beyond the reach of the political system. The latest is the National War Powers Commission led by former Secretaries of State James Baker and ****** Christopher. Their mission impossible: Give both the Presidency and Congress an exit from their endless struggles over the failed War Powers Act.
They and their commission partners have proposed the War Powers Consultation Act. Clearly, the central goal of this effort sits in its title -- consultation. Our fear, among many, is that the effort does little to solve another problem at the heart of this problem -- leaking. Indeed by our search, the word "leak" appears in the commission's report just once.
This new law would replace the War Powers Act of 1973, deemed unconstitutional by Presidents from both parties going back to Richard Nixon. The 1973 law is a relic of the scorched-earth politics of the Vietnam era. Messrs. Baker and Christopher dubbed the 1973 law "ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst" in a New York Times op-ed.
Under the proposed act, the President will have to meet with a new joint congressional committee made up of the House and Senate leaders, plus the chairs of various "key" committees. Consultation would occur whenever the U.S. engages in "significant armed conflicts," which are "combat operations that last or are expected to last more than a week." These operations exclude rescue efforts, covert missions and "acts of reprisal against terrorists." The proposal defines the two Iraq Wars as "significant armed conflicts," but President Reagan's air strikes against Libya are not.
The President will be required to file a report and meet with the committee every two months during the conflict. Also, this new joint committee gets a permanent staff with full access to intelligence and national-security information. Insofar as intel leaks have gushed forth during the Bush administration with the predictability of Old Faithful, what future President would agree to creating yet more open hydrants? We also doubt that the new joint committee gets past the familiar problem of a President having to negotiate with 535 congressional generals.
Under the proposal, Congress will have 30 days to authorize, approve or disapprove of the conflict, which the President can override with a veto.
Though a noble effort, this new law, like its 1973 predecessor, runs headlong into familiar constitutional roadblocks, and the commission acknowledges that. The fact remains that the Constitution clearly states that Congress has the right to declare war and the President has authority over the military. As always, if Congress disapproves of a conflict, it can use its two-thirds majority to override Presidential actions or cut its funding.
The core problem here lies beyond creating the gears and pulleys of a consultation mechanism. The extreme tension between the Presidency and Congress was born during the Vietnam War. After that, Congress's Democrats pulled leftward on military matters, away from party peers whose views of the U.S. role were shaped by World War II and the Cold War. In those more bipartisan days, Presidential consultation with Congress on such matters wasn't the train wreck it is now.
The Founders expected that the President and members of Congress would balance their separate responsibilities. The solution still lies there. It isn't an easy one, but it is more attainable than the mechanical path taken by the War Powers Commission.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121694467286683011.html
