Debating the War Powers Act

[wm]

I think we, collectively, are mature enough to leave the Partisanship out of it. I'm certain this topic would be appropriate at ILE or the War College. I hope that I'm not wrong and it stays open for discussion.

. . .(or "me too") as they say in Ankara. I just wanted to raise a flag of warning.

[Steve Blair]

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.

[marct]

I've got to agree with Steve on this - it's certainly a point of concern leaving off any partisan considerations.

In some ways, it's an excellent lead in to discussing definitions of "war". Does a war have to be state vs. state (the old, post-Westphalian assumption)? Can you have a "declared" war against a non-state actor (personally, I would say that you can)? If so, what is the status, under international conventions, of the members of that non-state actor?

Most of our thinking on these questions isn't really well developed - we've spent the last 4 centuries assuming that "war" refers to state vs. state despite evidence to the contrary. Politically, and by that I mean it in terms of political semantics, we need to really rethink our definitions and their implications. I don't think that tis is so much a case of party politics as it is a case of general political discourse.

[zenpundit]

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.

[Ken White]

................

[jkm_101_fso]

on "Morning in America" with Bill Bennett recently. I called in and got through, asking Bill his opinion. Bill noted that Warren Christopher and James Baker are "burnt candles that nobody cares about" and that the WPA would continue to be a non-issue; primarily because it was poor legislation to begin with (paraphrasing).

[Ken White]

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...