War powers, the Presidency, and the Congress

T

tube_ee

New member
It seems to me that we are heading for a showdown between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. The war in Iraq being the basis, of course.

As many of you know, I am a proud liberal Democrat. This and THR, where this discussion would be outside the rules, are the only places I go online where there is a conservative, Republican majority. So I'm curious to hear what you all think about the following idea, which I intend to submit to my Congressional Representatives, my Senators, the heads of the relevant committees, and the leadership of both Houses.

The law is very simple:

The United States shall not commit any act of war without a Declaration of War by the Congress.

So my questions to you fine folks, most of whom probably disagree with me on many, if not all, of the non-gun-related issues of the day, are these:

1) Would you support such a law, and if so, will you also propose it to your Representatives?

and

2) Would such a law be Constitutional?

Obviously, were such a law to be passed, the President would veto it. If the veto were overridden, it would most likely end up before the Supreme Court. Given the ideological makeup of the current Court, any guesses as to how they would rule?

Thanks, all...

--Shannon
 
Could you please explain why the war in Iraq would provoke a constitutional crisis?

As for the rest of what you said, your proposed law is basically trying to undo the war powers act. I don't think it would ever pass congress. Up until now SCOTUS has refused to listen to any cases regarding this as foreign policy issues have been deemed to lack standing.

Personally I think it ties the hands of the president unduly and then doesn't solve any problems that we have. What exactly is an act of war? Does it mean every possible use of force or something more? Do we really want to convene a session of congress for every single military action?

I don't think so.
 
First such a law would not be consistutional. Second did you ever stop to wonder why the President is refered to as " Commander in Chief" ? The founding fathers knew that Congress was not able to reasonably run a military operation. I will close now to keep out about today's vote in Congress.
 
The law is very simple:

The United States shall not commit any act of war without a Declaration of War by the Congress.
Click to expand...

You might want to propose a companion law to ensure the continuity of Congress.

What if, on Sept. 11, 2001, United flight 93 had crashed into its probable target, the U.S. Capitol Building, killing or disabling hundreds of Senators and Representatives? How quickly could Congress have recovered, if at all?

While the Constitution's 17th Amendment gives state governors the power to immediately appoint replacement Senators, there is currently no mechanism in place to quickly replace members of the House of Representatives.
Click to expand...
 
Why the war in Iraq will provoke a Constutional crisis

I think it will, because the majority in the Congress will try to end this war, and the President will resist to the last.

Bush has tied his Presidency to the war in Iraq, and he and Cheney both seem believe that the President's war powers are unlimited. The new Congress isn't buying that line of argument.

There will be a showdown.

And to answer your other question... Yes. The way I read the Constitution, it is solely the Congress' power to decide when the United States fights. How we fight, in terms of the direction of operations, is up to the President, consistent with the laws governing the conduct of the Armed Forces. I would prefer that America never engage in military action without a formal Declaration of War, and I think that the Constitution supports my view.

The specific language of my proposed law is designed to eliminate all of the gray areas you've brought up. And, as well, to provoke a final settlement of this question, because I doubt that anybody with sufficient power-lust to become President would accept such a limitation on the power they've expended so much effort to acquire.

For what little it's worth, I would also think this way if there were a Democrat in the White House. It's not about party. It's about power.

--Shannon
 
I think it will, because the majority in the Congress will try to end this war, and the President will resist to the last.

Bush has tied his Presidency to the war in Iraq, and he and Cheney both seem believe that the President's war powers are unlimited. The new Congress isn't buying that line of argument.
Click to expand...

This has been kind of beat to death in another thread, but to state it in a single sentence, once war is declared, the only thing congress can do to stop the war is to cut funding. Thats it.
 
The United States shall not commit any act of war without a Declaration of War by the Congress.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind a law that requires a war to be "re-ratified" after a certain amount of time has passed. There is obviously need to presidential authority to send troops for 60 days without congressional consent. Re-ratification would simply be a formal vote needing a simple majority. A loss during re-ratification would basically be the same as not receiving congressional approval and withdrawal would be required.

For the most part, these votes would be merely clerical, but it does open up debate without the need for new paperwork to be drafted.

Hey, maybe make it a 2/3 vote to not re-ratify.
 
THe act allows the presisent to carry oit attacls on any country for 60 days before he is required tp get congrssional approval.
 
I wouldn't mind a law that requires a war to be "re-ratified" after a certain amount of time has passed.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't mind an amendment that requires a war to be "re-ratified" after a certain amount of time has passed.
 
It's the War Powers Act that I would like to undo

It's a law, passed by Congress, and Congress can "unpass" it.

I can see no Constitutional issue with Congress requiring a formal Declaration of War before the President commits American forces to combat.

As to whether Congress can un-declare a war after they've declared it, the Constitution is silent, and it's never happened, so the Courts have never had a chance to decide. I don't know, personally.

I'm not taking about Congressional approval for every specific act of war, once war is declared, acts of war against the states or entities against whom war was declared are obviously covered by the Declaration of War. I'm talking about removing the President's ability to initiate hostilities. Once armies are in the field, it becomes very difficult to get them out if the President wants them there.

Just wanted to clarify what I'm talking about.

--Shannon
 
Declaring one's self Demo or GOP

Somehow, middle of the road smells better, you can choose to be conservative or liberal depending upon the subject at hand. And the subject with truthful answers as to : Is it legal? Is it honest? Does it conform to the norms of the majority of society? Is it physically harmful or hurtful? Etc.
 
My opinion:

I think "War Powers" have always been implied, but never given written conscent until 1933 due to the fact that written conscent is the death warrant to congressional war power, aka the peoples voice via representative.
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/waract.htm

As was predicted by Washington, and many of our forefathers, once this power is given, it proves nearly impossible to remove short of armed revolt.

A great book written on the topic I read recently is:
"War Powers: How the Imperial Presidency Hijacked the Constitution"
http://www.amazon.com/War-Powers-Imperial-Presidency-Constitution/dp/0805075933

written by:
Peter Irons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Irons

I think Aaron Russo's film "America, Freedom to Fascism" explains a large part of it as far as motivation, once the bi-partisans took over the elected seats in all three branches of power.
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/
 
LOL!!!! I had Peter Irons for several classes back in college. That guy is the most far left twit that I have ever seen. He would spend hours in class railing against Scalia and Renquist and their various decisions. Our final paper was to explain why the death penalty should be abolished becase of the racial disparity in punishment.

He is a Kook. Period.

P.S. he's also rabidly anti gun.
 
Congress voted on a resolution to give the president the authority to use force. The resolution is recorded along with who voted for it in both parties.

Now some are spinning tales that "I knew not what I did" as the Presidential election approaches.

So who is responsible for this war in Iraq? The President and Congress are. Takes two to tango. Now some those are gnashing their teeth and pointing the finger of blame at Bush even when they voted to give him that authority.

Now what leaves me scratching my head is the fact that the Democrats decide to have a nonbinding resolution to show where folks stand. Not only does it not end up passing Congress it polarizes the situation between Congress and the White House.

Contrary to popular media reports all of Iraq is not awash in terroristic chaos.
If we get our collective crap together in D.C. we might figure out a solution.

Leaving Iraq is the easy solution. What has history taught us about taking the expedient choice? That the karma comes back worse and goes directly for the jugular bypassing the buttocks.

There were mistakes made in invading Iraq without a firm set of goals in the beginning. The Bush administration had a classic case of "stopped car syndrome" They were the dog chasing the car it stopped and they couldn't figure out what to do. Bush has admitted mistakes were made.

Are the fundamental religious sea lots and terrorists going to pack up their RPGs and AK47s and go back to the house once we leave? Don't think so. Would just packing up and leaving Iraq give them a victory? You bet it would.

The Dems are the joker in the deck. They want the troops out of Iraq but don't want to do so in a binding resolution. They don't want to be the ones who screwed the pooch in the future. Some of their names are on the line for voting for the war. Just saying no does not make it a plan.

The Dems said they wanted to make a change in the way things were done in Congress. Are they taking car of the peoples business or do they have their eye on the 2008 election?

Maybe that change should be to sit down with the President and come up with a plan for Iraq and some achievable goals.

Before you chime in saying yeh those damn Democrats... The blame is plenty high enough on the GOP side also for a liferaft.
 
If Lyndon Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin resolution didn't provoke a Constitutional Crisis, then I sincerely doubt that the current situation will.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 replaced the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

And guess what?

A ****pot load of Democrats in Congress signed on to the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan while following the spirit and letter of the War Powers Resolution.

If there's a "Constitutional Crisis" out of all of this, the Democrats have one hell of a lot of blame to take for it.
 
Congress approved this war.
So how would a law requiring congress to approve a war have mad any difference?
 
Such a law as presented in post #1 makes no sense and would leave us critically vulnerable if we were attacked.

As for the ability of the President to act for 60 days prior to congressional approval, I guess we just have to trust him or her to represent America's best interests.
 
Stage2 said:
LOL!!!! I had Peter Irons for several classes back in college. That guy is the most far left twit that I have ever seen. He would spend hours in class railing against Scalia and Renquist and their various decisions. Our final paper was to explain why the death penalty should be abolished becase of the racial disparity in punishment.

He is a Kook. Period.

P.S. he's also rabidly anti gun.
Click to expand...

And this is a reply of competence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top