Fighting words: Who gets to declare war?
By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes Mideast edition, Thursday, July 10, 2008
The Constitution says
The Constitution says ...
Article I, Section VIII
The Congress shall have power …
to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning
captures on land and water …
Article II, Section II
The President shall be
commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia
of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States
…
Source: U.S. Constitution
|
WASHINGTON — No one is really sure who gets to decide when the United States
goes to war, according to former Secretary of State James Baker.
"Of course, our Constitution gives our president the powers of commander in
chief," he told reporters Tuesday. "But Congress has the power of the purse, and
the power to declare war.
"But history indicates that the president and Congress have often disagreed
about their respective roles in the decision to go to war."
This week, an independent panel led by Baker, former Secretary of State
Warren Christopher and other retired statesmen urged Congress and the president
to adopt a new plan governing U.S. war powers, clarifying the process for all
overseas military operations.
The commission, established by the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of
Public Affairs, said the current system leaves too much uncertainty as to whom
the president needs to consult before committing troops, when Congress needs to
weigh in and how lawmakers can best stay informed of threats worldwide.
"Of all the agonizing decisions the nation must make, perhaps the most
fateful of all is the decision to go to war," Christopher said. "We think this
will greatly increase the cooperation between Congress and the president on the
way to war, and this is something that the American people … very much want."
An inherent conflict
At the heart of the issue is confusion over how the Constitution lays out war
powers.
The framers wrote in the Constitution that Congress has the power to declare
war, to raise and support armies, and to repel invasions, but they also named
the president as commander in chief, giving him the power to order the armed
forces to defend the country.
Nowhere do they specify whose power trumps the other. Over the years both the
executive and legislative branches have claimed sole authority.
The commission noted that federal courts have refused to enter the debate.
In 1973, Congress tried to resolve the constitutional divide through a War
Powers Resolution, requiring the president to end combat operations overseas
within 90 days unless Congress approves the fighting.
But Baker and critics said that law has been largely ineffective, since every
president since Richard Nixon has deemed the law an unconstitutional breach of
presidential powers. None has filed the paperwork to start the 90-day timeline,
and Congress has not challenged the White House in court.
In the case of Iraq, Congress in 2002 approved a measure to allow President
Bush to use force if Saddam Hussein refused to comply with United Nations
weapons restrictions.
Opposition lawmakers later complained that they were poorly informed and felt
Bush overstepped his authority to declare war, and have sought to put time lines
and restrictions on forces ever since.
The way forward
The commission’s new plan would establish a joint congressional committee to
be the point of consultation for the president before and during any overseas
military action.
For any combat operation overseas expected to last more than a week, the
president would be required to inform Congress within three days of committing
troops. The House and the Senate would vote on a resolution supporting or
opposing the action within 30 days of the start of fighting.
If lawmakers oppose it, the resolution could be vetoed by the president like
any other piece of legislation, or the president could bring military forces
back home.
W. Taylor Reveley, commission member and interim president of the College of
William and Mary, said the new plan relies on Congress and the president acting
"for the good of the country" rather than dodging timelines for political gain.
But commission members emphasized that simply having a standing committee in
Congress to act as a consistent adviser for the president will be a significant
change from the current, open-ended consultation requirement for the White
House.
"In the (current) war powers bill, there’s no designation for who the
president [must consult with]," said Lee Hamilton, commission member who spent
34 years as a representative from Indiana. "Consulting with Congress is an
enormously difficult task. You have 535 members, and presidents don’t really
know, beyond certain leaders, where to go."
Baker said nothing in the proposal touches the constitutionality issues of
who is the ultimate decider in declaring war. Instead, it’s a compromise, making
sure that both sides are fully aware and active when the decision is made.
Commission members said they hope the issue will come to a vote before
Congress early next year, once a new administration is in the White House.
Members of Congress and both presidential campaigns were consulted in putting
together the language, Baker said, but he would not say whether any of those
groups had committed to the changes.

|