Clearing Up a President's War-Making Powers

Reader Comments
Back to article

And Status,settlement cut concept quickly bring burn as comparison atmosphere instruction plastic combination careful meeting limit date team project lord writing influence kid mental initiative feeling attention relatively profit different seat stop effectively housing score far moment teach economy pocket activity only whatever fact concept suggestion event unfortunately hot meal earn us partner speech cut other just expenditure media author corporate police pay attack unable decade iron accompany welcome will expect high silence creation flat amongst curriculum an editor there recent half earth discussion definition hold solicitor expenditure may very sign husband

Halfquite of 8:15PM December 14, 2009

It is time for a Constitutional amendment specifying clear limits on presidential war powers and the roll of Congress in committing troops to armed conflict. I suggest the following:
"As Commander-In-Chief, the president may order troops into armed conflict only in emergencies. The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of doing so, and troops must be withdrawn within 30 days unless Congress declares war."

Herschel E. Moore of TX 6:30PM August 26, 2008

Wouldn't it be nice if, while they are debating this issue, that some brave soul would recommend that we establish a Dept of Peace which has been advocated by Dennis Kucinich for a number of years?
I believe that it's time to take the advice of the late President Eisenhower's advice concerning the military industrial complex. The Pentagon and the military is one of the most massive wastes of money ever pulled on humankind.
No president should ever be given the powers that this un-elected, unqualified, lying man has seized for himself while a spineless congress stood idly by. It should be carved in stone, that no one person can ever again take this country to war without a thorough review by Congress.
Our military should be used only to defend this country, not to fight & die for the lies of the greedy, corporate, power hungry war mongers.

Magginkat of FL 11:29AM July 13, 2008

McCain’s ideological support, like Bush’s, comes from Podhoretz Neo-Cons and Leiberman Neo-Libs, not Reagan Conservatives nor Kennedy Liberals. These supporters have the same Neo-Marxist roots, which originated over 60 years ago, when millions of defeated Marxist immigrants from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were admitted by America, as desperate persecuted refugees; after all of the European nations refused to take them.
By the McCarthy Era, many of these pathetic refugees had gotten good government jobs, by studious education and systematic ingratiation with leading men in the government. By way of showing their deep gratitude to the American People, they ideologically corrupted the government and other institutions, and many endangered national security by working as spies for Marxist Russia. The most notorious of these spies, the Rosenbergs, were executed for treason. This had the intended beneficial effect of stopping most of the dangerous spying; but it had the unintended consequence of causing these Marxist refugees to seek social and economic power by pretentiously assimilating into the Conservative Republican and Liberal Democrat parties; where they quickly mutated into the Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberals, with insidious ideological opposition to traditional Christian culture and Constitutional principles. The result of the subversive influence by these virulent Crypto-Neo-Marxists in the government, schools, news media and entertainment media was the increasingly intolerably cultural degeneration that has led up to the American Cultural War.
Podhoretz Neo-Con and Leiberman Neo-Lib ideologies notoriously promote contempt for patriotism, defensive war, historical fact, Christian culture, United States Constitution, United Nations, and Conservative Reagan Republicans and Liberal Kennedy Democrats.
With the failure of Marxist ideology, the Neo-Cons opposed the revolutionary spread of Marxism, and now strive to control the deployment of American military power for interventionist warfare everywhere in the World; but the Neo-Libs continue to support Marxist revolutions everywhere. To survive, these Neo-Marxist mutants, Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs, quite readily change from one form into the other, depending patriotic spirit of the times.

Jeugenen of MA 10:54AM July 13, 2008

This is not really about the separation of powers. Every important move that involves the Congress and the White house is a showdown of power between the leaderships of the Democrat and Republican parties. No one comes to these offices without the okay of those people in exchange for which those office holders are obliged to honor the importance of that party control. This makes the President a de-facto dictator in every showdown because congress couldn't agree on luchtime to override a veto. The party leadership must be dragged into the open and castigated by the press in the loudest and most persistant way possible in order to for the people to see them for the unelected cartel that they are.

Harold R. Pettus of WA 6:38PM July 10, 2008

i believe, without a doubt, that the founding fathers did not intend to consolidate the power to declare war in the hands of the president rather than the congress; to me 100 heads is better than one. The power to declare war as it is right now is not only confusing; it is ambiguous. It puts a shared responsibility on both the president and the congress. Not only have the past presidents used this power to commit americans to many unfortunate and unpopular wars; the power has been abused several times for self-serving purposes rather than the reason for which it was originally enacted. The supreme court now has a genuine reason to finally do something worth noting by intervening in this process to put this lingering questionn to rest permanently.

wale of GA 5:40PM July 10, 2008

I'm very impressed that these two former Secretaries of State thought it necessary to resolve constitutional ambiguities today when they found no compelling need to do so during their administrations. Using the recent congressional actions regarding FISA, where the ability to collect actionable intelligence is just as critical as making the decision to engage our armed forces, I find it hard to believe this revision to the War Powers Act is going to provide any benefit toward the security of our nation. The present Congress doesn't have the gumption to make sound laws and decisions for it's constituency, let alone have the collective moral courage to wage war.

Dave in Colorado Springs of CO 5:14PM July 09, 2008

I, for one, predict that the Supreme Court will weigh in on this because anything passed by Congress wil have Constitutional questions. Like it or not, the same thinking that gave you a president in 2000 (to avoid a "crisis") will give your president a lot of independent war power---or not.
Not knocking Catholics here, but likely the conservative four Catholics, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito will choose for Executive decisons over Legislative decisions and the fifth Catholic, Kennedy, will make the decision. That's how we did Gitmo and handguns and how we will do everything else for a while yet to come. Five Catholic men will decide it for you.

Daniel David of NM 2:26PM July 09, 2008

The goal is good, but how would it work in real life? Congress has a 9% approval rating because it is incapable of dealing with anything more difficult than approving "National Artichoke Day". How is Congress doing on health care reform, immigration reform, social security reform, an effective long-term national energy policy, and so on? The only way Congress can address a difficult issue is to establish a commission (such as the Base Realignment and Closure Commission) and be given an up or down vote on the commission's recommendations.
If Congress had to vote on approving the commitment of force, many of the members would have a fit. Where is the cover for them? They couldn't all abstain. The "peace at all costs" liberals couldn't all vote "No" without reinforcing the perception that the Democratic Party is "weak on national security". You can bet the farm that Congress would temporize - "OK, we will authorize the commitment, but get back to us in another 30 days" - over and over again.
How is this significantly different from the current situation? Congress already has the authority to do this, and the Constitutional power to block funding for an unauthorized conflict.
And then there's the security problem - Congress leaks like a sieve. How much classified information do we want to give Congress to justify an action when that information is going to be known around the world the next day?
We don't need more empty laws. The problem isn't lack of clarity over war powers. It's institutional cowardice, incompetence and indiscretion in Congress. A new law won't make "...Congress take a clear stand on future wars" as the article suggests.
Perhaps a better solution is to make the National War Powers Commission a standing body; require the administration to brief them within similar time limits (and continue briefing them); have the Commission advise Congress (and continue advising them); and have Congress take up or down votes on the Commission's recommendations. This violates the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" concept, but an intermediary body may be the best way to deal with an abusive administration and/or a weak Congress.

Stephen Burleson of ME 12:24PM July 09, 2008

In the early days of pre-WW2, movement and response was a sluggish thing. But in today's world of nanosecond timing, the Commander-in-Chief and JCS have to move to save our country. 9/11 is an example of trying to respond evenly in a tragic crisis. If the mid-east is going up in radioactive dust, we don't have time, or the knowledge, to openly debate this across the country. I am not a warhawk but certainly I am sensitive to the dangers of NOT controlling some of the vicious leaders of the mid-east. Let's pray that our CinC, now and later, has the intestinal fortitude to respond courageously and responsibly to the next crisis.

Mark D of FL 12:18PM July 09, 2008