The battle over war powers
From the Los Angeles Times Opinion
The Constitution, and the War Powers Act of 1973, limit a president's ability to initiate conflict. Some wish to change that. By Paul Findley and Don Fraser
September 22, 2008
The House Foreign Affairs Committee is conducting hearings on proposals to amend the War Powers Act of 1973. One proposal, House Joint Resolution 53, would wisely tighten restrictions on executive war-making by the president. Another, proposed by a 12-member commission led by two former secretaries of State -- Republican James Baker and Democrat Warren Christopher -- but not yet introduced as a bill, would dangerously expand the authority of the president to order acts of war without authorization by Congress. Baker and Christopher are scheduled to testify before Congress on Wednesday about their proposal.
The framers of the Constitution agreed that the president should be commander in chief of land and naval forces, but -- deeply concerned over the gravity of war and as a safeguard against hasty and needless hostilities with foreign nations -- they agreed that Congress should have the prerogative to "declare" or authorize war. The framers meant to prohibit the president from waging war without a declaration of war or specific authorization by Congress, except when necessary to repel attacks on American territory or commerce, its military or citizens. TheBaker-Christopher proposal assaults this crucial prohibition.
In recent history, an unauthorized presidential war brought calamity to the United States. Ambiguity in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964 was used as a pretext for executive war-making in Vietnam not intended by Congress. That war was unjustifiable from a military or geopolitical standpoint.
--MORE--