Proposal would strengthen US Presidential war powers

Kim Pearson — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:47:24 -0500

Remember the book, "The Little Prince" by Antoine de St. Exupery? I was always intrigued by one particular character in that book -- the king who was always issuing orders. He would order the Little Prince to do something, but if his "subject" decided to do something else, the King would order the Little Prince to do that. I was reminded of St. Exupery's king when I read about the new proposal from former Secretaries of State Warren Christopher and James Baker to revise the 1973 War Powers Act in a way that legalizes the ways in which Presidents have ignored or skirted the law over the years.

Baker and Christopher put forward their draft legislation as part of a report from a bipatisan panel known as the National War Powers Commission. According to the press release issued with the report, their National War Powers Act of 2009:

Provides that the president
shall consult with Congress before deploying U.S. troops into
"significant armed conflict" – i.e., combat operations lasting, or
expected to last, more than a week.
Defines the types of hostilities that would or would not be considered "significant armed conflicts."
Creates
a new Joint Congressional Consultation Committee, which includes
leaders of both Houses as well as the chair and ranking members of key
committees.
Establishes
a permanent bipartisan staff with access to the national security and
intelligence information necessary to conduct its work.
Calls on Congress, to vote up or down on significant armed conflicts within 30 days

Blogger Patricia Lee Sharpe calls the propsal "a Bi-patisan Presidential Power Grab," observing:

We who prize representative democracy, the rule of law and the U.S.
Constitution generally are evidently expected to give Messers Baker and
Christopher a hearty round of applause for their proposed coup, and
Congress is expected to roll over and cede yet more power to the
Presidency.

Diachronic at TPMCafe criticized the Commission for failing to address the Constitutional dilemma at the core of the debate over presidential war powers. As part of its system of checks and balances, the framers of the Constitution designated the President as Commander in Chief, but gave Congress the authority to declare wars and determine their level of funding. Diachronic applauds a separate bi-partisan bill that would require presidents to get Congressional "assent' for warmaking, except when responding to a direct attack on the US.

On the other hand, veteran columnist David Broder argues that the proposal is a 'healthy change toward bi-partisanship in foreign policy."

What do you think -- a common-sense step in the right direction, or still more evidence of the erosion of our Constitution system of checks and balances?

BlogHer - Proposal would strengthen US Presidential war powers - Comments

Proposal would strengthen US Presidential war powers