Debating the War Powers Act
It looks like another "bi-partisan" group is at it again:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/08/war.powers/
This legislation from 1973 has been regularly ignored by most Presidents since it was passed, Republican and Democrat alike.
Does it need to be re-looked?
In this age of warfare, is the term "declare war on..." obsolete?
Would any new legislation encompass "peace-keeping" deployments, as well?
I'm no expert, but isn't the only "power" the legislative branch has over the executive branch in regards to the military is the "power of the purse" and said "war declaration"?
What would be added/removed from the Act?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Abu Suleyman
All of the points made above may actually be valid, however, I agree that the War Powers act does need to be revised if not repealed altogether. In the first place, it is probanbly unconstitutional. .
I think the notion of War Declaration maybe obsolete, considering that the likelihood of declaring war on another nation as a whole seems unlikely right now. The budget control aspect is the real power, however, we've seen Congress continue to approve the Iraq War budgets the Presidents seeks. Since it's already on-going, it will be virtually impossible not to fund. Probably more applicable before a proposed war starts. I'm still confused on whether a Bosnia-style conflict would be applicable here...not "war" for the U.S., but still takes funds to accomplish? What about a possible U.S. (UN) military intervention in Darfur? That wouldn't be war, necessarily, but would take funds, but not need a war declaration? What additional language to the Act could define this? I agree that it is outdated and does need refining.
Putting on the moderator hat....
I suspect it will stay open...so long as folks behave themselves and refrain from sounding like "Meet the Press" or "Fox and Friends.":)
That said, I consider the subject germane from a historical standpoint because so many of our small wars have been conducted by executive order or fiat (something I believethe Small Wars Manual pointed out). The point at which a small war becomes a larger one (from a political and budget standpoint) is certainly worth discussing, and War Powers does speak to that to a degree.
Again, so long as no bandwagons or political campaign posters come out we should be fine. From my perspective at least.
War Powers Act cannot be reformed
The War Powers Act of 1973 is clearly an unconstitutional law that passed for the same reasons that the unconstitutional Tenure of Office Act passed - a mostly united Congress could override the veto of a highly unpopular and discredited president. Congress has not been eager to test violations of the law in Federal court because the end result is not in doubt. Any attempt to reform the act, as Baker and Christopher suggest, to give Congress a "legislative veto" over uses of force will also be unconstitutional.
Congressmen cannot - and should not be allowed to - escape the need to pay a political price in making decisions of war and peace. Of all the votes they cast, these are the ones where their reasoning should be out front and center for the American public to see.
What we have here is a casting around for some mechanism by which the legislative branch can exercise it's authority without taking responsibility instead of using the powers granted to them under Article I. What our elected representatives need isn't more political cover but more wisdom, more spine and far less careerism.
Heh. I'm pretty sure he's correct on
Christopher and Baker and he's probably right on the WPA as well. It should be scrapped but almost certainly won't be for a half dozen reasons -- inertia being a big one...