The popular NPR program On Point (with Tom Ashbrook) ran a lengthy segment yesterday on the War Powers Act and the bipartisan commission's (led by former Secretaries of State Warren Christopher and James Baker III) recommendations for changing it. Parts of it made me very angry.
I got through the first half; what was striking was that historian Doris Kearns Goodwin essentially endorsed Baker/Christopher et al's points about Congress "consulting with the President" as a viable and useful 'fix' to the Act. She also supported their suggestion that, paraphrased, "if they pass a resolution of approval, the President can go forward; if it doesn't pass, then they can try to pass a resolution of disapproval to stop him, but he could veto it." She goes on to even ACKNOWLEDGE that this means they might need a veto-proof majority to override a President intent on going to war and then vaguely concludes that this is GOOD because "having broad bipartisan consensus" (paraphrased) on war is a good thing.
As Lou Fisher said in his guest blog post here:
First, if a resolution of approval were defeated in either House, that is the end of it. Congress should not then have to vote for a resolution of disapproval. If it is vetoed, lawmakers would need a majority of two-thirds in each house for the override. That means the President could start a war and continue it if he maintained a margin of one-third plus one in a single House.
Note to Goodwin: one-third plus one of a single House is not a broad bipartisan consensus for war.
This is a big problem. Big name pundits who are seen as "reasonable" and "moderate" like Doris Kearns Goodwin are getting this wrong and endorsing mechanisms that ignore the Constitution and make it easier for a President to send the country into war without congressional approval.
This is why we need to Recapture the Flag and make sure that we're actually upholding the Constitution and that Congress doesn't willfully give away its rightful powers. A couple more useful points from Fisher to remember, in his response to Baker/Christopher:
They say "Our Constitution ambiguously divides war powers between the president (who is commander in chief) and Congress...." There was never anything ambiguous about Congress being the only branch that could take the country from a state of peace to a state of war. No one before President Truman ever argued that the title "commander in chief" empowered the President to commit offensive operations against another country.
They object that the WPR "empowers Congress to terminate an armed conflict by simply doing nothing." I have never defended the WPR and don't intend to here, but there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress controlling a war power matter by doing nothing. If the President submits a proposal to use military force abroad and Congress ignores his proposal, that is the end of it. Congress isn't required to act. If the President requests funds to continue a war and Congress provides nothing, that is the end of it.
We should not be watering down the Constitution under the guise of "reasonable compromises." (See also, FISA)
