It should not be necessary to pass a new law ensuring the White House consults with Congress before taking the nation to war. But because a bipartisan study group chaired by two former secretaries of state has concluded it is necessary, Congress should pursue the recommended legislation — to require the president to inform Congress of plans to engage in “significant armed conflict” or noncovert operations lasting longer than a week. Once Congress got that information, it would have to respond within 30 days. “What we aim to do with this statute is to create a process that will encourage the two branches to cooperate and consult in a way that is both practical and true to the spirit of the Constitution,” said James Baker, secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush. Baker co-chaired the study group with Warren Christopher, who was Bill Clinton’s first secretary of state.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
33 Comments
As if that will do any good. Seems to me congress already gave bush everything he wanted leading up to the invasion of Iraq. What’s really needed are competent congressional men and women who actually investigate what war is all about. Most of them are too damn lazy to actually read all info generated. Look at who all signed the homeland security act without reading it. Patriotism only goes so far; stupidity got thousands killed, and that lasts forever. All the laws and rules in the world can’t fix stupid.
Bush will do as he damned well pleases. He is God and thus, shall be obeyed. Congress, shmongress.
Duh dems were ‘agin’ funding the war before they were ‘fer’ it.
Guess, those pink shirts will have to wait out in the corridors once again.
Pelosi and Reid have become the toothless hounds on Capitol Hill. Although recently, big ears Waxman has lifted his skirt up at the Justice department with another threat of contempt. I wonder how many cars one can park in Waxman’s nostrils?
The Iraq war being a success now and all has the dumocrats rocking back on their heels so much that even Osama Obama has had to revise his position (flip flop flip flop) on Iraq.
Even the ‘pistol packin’ Senator Webb has fastened the top buttons to his blouse to keep Osama Obama from staring down his shirt for the Vice Presidency nomination.
Pass another law? HEHEHEHEHEHEHEH!
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
Another law that bush can ignore? Why bother?
And if bushco ignores THIS law?
heheheheheh.
Pelosi and reid can send another STRONGLY worded letter.
Big eye roll.
Send ‘em all home!
The current law, the War Powers Act, is probably unconstitutional according to most scholars, though in practice the White House obeyed it even as they claimed it was invalid. It’s never been tested in court, however.
Ultimately, JM’s right. Another law is no answer; Congress actually stepping to the plate is the only answer. And that takes political courage, something in short supply in Washington (and something Obama has never substantially exhibited, BTW; note the long string of “present” votes).
This, BTW, is one of the reasons the founders so opposed large standing armies. When the President is C-in-C, and the military forces are large and far-flung, it inherently increases his powers – and his mischief-making ability. Congress doesn’t need a new law, however, they need only to use the significant powers they have: cut off funding for operations. As we have seen time and again, however, they don’t have the cahones for that.
We are at war with the world wide terrorists now. Has that been declared by Congress? Shoot first and ask questions later.
“We are at war with the world wide terrorists now. ”
Got a mouse in your pocket guy?
Sorry, not my fight.
Yahoos like “george” are the reason the war powers need retooling. There’s always some idiots ready to send other folks to do some fighting.
I have to ask, George, “whom are the “terrorists”? Describe one for me please.
Each time a new law is passed, we give up another choice in our “freedom of choice” foundation.
Congressman Ron Paul has warned millions of radio listeners that the US is heading into a deadly confrontation with Iran, revealing his disbelief at members of Congress who have openly voiced support for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the country.
“If we do (attack) it is going to be a disaster,” the Congressman told the Alex Jones show this Thursday.
“I was astounded to see on one of the networks the other day that the debate was not are we going to attack? but are we going to attack before or after the election?” Paul continued.
The Congressman recently voiced his concern over House Congressional Resolution 362 which he has dubbed a ‘Virtual Iran War Resolution’.
“If that comes up it is demanding that the President put on an absolute blockade of the entire country of Iran, and punish any country or any business group around the world if they trade with Iran.” Paul told listeners.
Experts have predicted gas will rise to $6 per gallon if the resolution passes, Paul believes that may happen anyway just by anticipation.
“The frightening thing is they say they are taking no options off the table, even nuclear first strike.” The Congressman stated.
Paul believes from talking with his contacts in and around Congress that a strike on Iran has already been green lighted.
“That is my sense because the Democratic leadership in the House are proposing no resistance whatsoever, we saw this when a supplemental bill came up and the President asked for $107 billion for the war, the Democrat leadership gave them $162 billion.
It is still totally bewildering to me when I see men and women in the Congress that I know and like doing this just to get along. Most of them will say “I agree with you on all you say but the Iranians are bad people and they might attack us some day… I hear members of Congress saying ‘if we could only nuke them’.”
http://theamericanstatesman.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/ron-paul-i-hear-members-of-congress-saying-if-we-could-only-nuke-iran/
Iran has test fired long range missles within a very short time, that was today or yesterday, however you tell time in the Mideast. What do you peaceniks have to say about that? You can condemn them all you want, like China they aren’t going to change. You have to be ready and prepared, if you want to survive in today’s world, like it or not. Even Obama has committed on telling them to be nice.
Iran has test fired long range missles within a very short time,
Good for them. How many test fires has Israel completed? What is your point? If we were on uncertain terms with a nuclear Canada, which country would you allow tell us we could not develop nuclear weapons?
Take off the big hat. We are not the world police. We are not world dictators. If we kept our p-eck-ers in our pants more often, we wouldn’t have to feel threatened all the time.
The congress subrogated themselve to bush, mainly along party lines, we need people in there that honor the congressional branch, as a truly equal third branch.
Not the waterboy, we’re probably going to send back.
A simple act of Congress can not change the Constitution.
Not where war powers are concerned.
It is entirely possible for Congress to violate the law on this matter.
There is a balance of power for a reason.
There is a balance of power for a reason.
Have you heard of the Patriot Act? Warrentless wiretaps? Hmmmmm.
Congress can always choose NOT to fund any war, if it truly does not agree with the President’s action.
Course this DEM Congress, which promised to end the Iraq war, has funded it 3 times now in 18 months.
They obviously agree with it. The Congress could have ended it months ago, but CHOSE NOT TO!
The Dems Lied about ending the war!
Typical thoughts on here:
LET’S KILL THE WORLD!!! NUKE THE EARTH FOR THE RIGHTS OF A PURE AND WHITE AMERICA! GOD DEMANDS IT!
signed-
Uneducated, war-mongering, chicken-hawk yokel.
If congress passes that law, Tsar Bush II will just send the marines (the few he’s got left anyway) into congress with orders to shoot any congressman who doesn’t vote to let him invade Iran before the election.
” … legislation that will encourage the two braches to cooperate and consult …”
I didn’t know James Baker had such a sesnse of humor. The only way you would get Congress to cooperate with even themselves let alone the Executive Brach would be to send the Army and Marines in and declare marshal law.
You don’t think that all three branches are cooperating? Really? Seems like they are unanimous in their decisions to me.
“Franklin
Posted July 9, 2008 at 11:28 am | Permalink
A simple act of Congress can not change the Constitution.
Not where war powers are concerned.
It is entirely possible for Congress to violate the law on this matter.
There is a balance of power for a reason.”
And the US Constitution gives CONGRESS the power to declare war. NOT the executive.
BTH
And the Constitution makes the PRESIDENT the Commander in Chief.
The Constitution never requires that war be “declared” prior to the President taking decisive action to defend American interests.
From the very beginning, Presidents have fought pirates, responded to hostile actions, rescued hostages and otherwise protected America, without specific Congressional authorization.
Congress does have the “power to declare war” —
However, show me where the Constitution says that “All War must be Declared by Congress” — The President is free to use the military in undeclared conflicts, especially in emergency situations.
The Congress can not take over executive functions.
The Congress should not micro-manage Defense issues.
“And the Constitution makes the PRESIDENT the Commander in Chief.
The Constitution never requires that war be “declared” prior to the President taking decisive action to defend American interests.”
Actually if you bothered to read the Constitution the powers of reprisals are granted to the Congress. Sure, the President is Commander in Chief of the military (hence not my Commander in Chief) but he is limited as long as his orders cost absolutely nothing since he has no power to fund military operations.
#
MaxGrobnik
Posted July 9, 2008 at 11:43 am | Permalink
Congress can always choose NOT to fund any war, if it truly does not agree with the President’s action.
Course this DEM Congress, which promised to end the Iraq war, has funded it 3 times now in 18 months.
They obviously agree with it. The Congress could have ended it months ago, but CHOSE NOT TO!
The Dems Lied about ending the war!
=================================================
The republicans lied about starting the war, so there!
Maggot
You are confusing “reprisal” or revenge, with rescue and defense.
The President, if he heard that terrorists had kidnapped a cruise ship, would have the absolute right to send the military to rescue the passengers of that ship.
The President would not have to consult Congress.
george
Posted July 9, 2008 at 9:53 am | Permalink
Iran has test fired long range missles within a very short time, that was today or yesterday, however you tell time in the Mideast. What do you peaceniks have to say about that? You can condemn them all you want, like China they aren’t going to change. You have to be ready and prepared, if you want to survive in today’s world, like it or not. Even Obama has committed on telling them to be nice.
——-
So why is Iraq’s minister al Maliki promising the president of Iran that Iraq will protect Iran from the US if and when the US has bases in Iraq?
Why is no one in the Bush Administration or Congress upset about al Maliki being so protective of Iran?
Why has the Bush Administration pushed forward and has spent billions of dollars on the Iraq War if Iraq’s own minister al Maliki is promising our sworn enemy, Iran, Iraq’s protection?
We are fighting terrorists but I’m afraid we are in bed with one and the same – Iraq’s new government seems to be too chummy with Iran for my taste.
Just some trivia – there have been well over 200 times when American troops have been deployed overseas in our history. How many declarations of war?
Anyone?
Don’t go Googling and cheat, now. There are prizes involved!
hmmm
1812 war, Mexican War, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII
At least that’s all I remember from history.
(uses toes to count)
5 times
Pall,
And just where was this emergency to protect the interests of the American people in Iraq? Bush had been trying unsuccessfully for a year and a half to blame Iraq for 9/11, and got nowhere until his crew manufactured the non-existent WMD controversy. He had plenty of time to ask congress for a decaration of war, but since he couldn’t honestly justify it, he went ahead and invaded Iraq without a declaration. No emergency, no WMD’s, no justification other than an attempt at recovering his family jewels from Saddam and a cockamamie theory that the quick invasion would spark a middle-east paradise that would result in a democratic revolution in the whole of the middle-east. Well, he cost the US better than 4,000 of our children, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and five years in we are worse off than we were before in terms of mational security, corrupt officials and corporations here and in Iraq have been handed the keys to the teasury, Afghanistan has returned as the world dope capital and Bin Laden remains very publicly at large!
There’s a reason congress was given the responsibility to decare war, and we and our great-grandchildren will be paying in untold ways for Bush’s decision to regard our Constitution as a “scrap of paper.”
“Maggot
You are confusing “reprisal” or revenge, with rescue and defense.
The President, if he heard that terrorists had kidnapped a cruise ship, would have the absolute right to send the military to rescue the passengers of that ship.
The President would not have to consult Congress.”
And how does that relate to the issue at hand? Was Bush rescuing Iraq’s oil from Iraq? Invading a country to grab it’s natural resources is a war crime. But as usual you show you have no clue about anything.
“GMC70
Posted July 9, 2008 at 8:41 am | Permalink
The current law, the War Powers Act, is probably unconstitutional according to most scholars, though in practice the White House obeyed it even as they claimed it was invalid. It’s never been tested in court, however.”
Hmmmm just the other day, GMC didnt WANT judges to make LAWS… Now??? Maybe he does??
I hear the sound of flip-flops…. LOL
what did u feel when you first bump into it