As the article notes:
Only the U.S. Congress has the authority to declare war, and it hasn't done so for 68 years.On the other hand, that hasn't kept us out of a dozen or so dustups, some of which (Korea, Viet-nam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Kosovo, Afghanistan) have required an overt commitment of our regular forces and put American Service Members at risk. If I was too subtle, the plain truth is we have a problem here.
So, as I was reading, it was with some hope that I saw that our Junior Senator, John F Kerry, was holding hearings on proposed new legislation to address this problem. He is in the position to do so, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The approach is to require the President to consult with Congress:
Drafted by a National War Powers Commission convened by the University of Virginia, the legislation would require presidents to conduct "meaningful consultation" with a new joint committee of Congress before or immediately after sending U.S. troops into conflict.The problem is—and you knew there was a problem—this is just a restatement of what the US Constitution already calls for.
The law then gives Congress 30 days to vote on a resolution to approve the president's action. If the resolution fails in either house, any member of Congress may propose a resolution of disapproval.
Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin (from Janesville, my wife's home town) thinks this is not a step in the right direction. It gets down to the President consulting with a "gang of 12." This means that others could well be excluded. He makes it sound like Beacon Hill, which ought to concern us all. The article goes on to say:
Feingold also warned that the legislation also requires Congress to pass a resolution of disapproval by a veto-proof margin in order to pull U.S. troops out of hostilities.I am with Senator Feingold. I don't see that happening. This is just another excuse for the US Congress to abandon its Constitutional Responsibilities.
"That means, in effect, that the president would need only one-third of members plus one additional member of either house of Congress to continue a war started unilaterally by the president," he said.
But, maybe out of the hearings will come some backbone.
Regards — Cliff
Well said--something that can't be said enough.
ReplyDeleteI can't decide if I think that Congress, for not impeaching presidents for subverting the constitution they have sworn to uphold, (from Kennedy to Bush in the extreme cases of Vietnam and Iraq, for example), or the presidents themselves, for subverting the constitution they have sworn to uphold, are most at fault.
The obvious conclusion is that they're both guilty and somebody ought to bring suit to the Supreme Court to have it adjudicated, just in case one of the three branches isn't compelled to commit treason to the constitution in pursuit of the reckless death of soldiers and civilians alike.
The irony is that, properly declared, we're far less likely to waste so much money, materiel and men and women on tragic windmill-tilts that serve to destabilize our country to a greater degree than the "threat" the cowboy presidents (meant to include mr. kennedy in this regard) are trying to thwart. I have to believe the founders foresaw exactly the calamities we have been enduring these past 50 years.