Obama to Hear Congressional Panel on Changes to War Powers Act

[sabra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/us/politics/11web-baker.html?ref=us

WASHINGTON — It’s not as if President-elect Barack Obama doesn’t have enough on his plate with a financial meltdown and a home-state scandal. But now he is delving into the thorny question of who can send the country into war.

In between interviewing cabinet nominees and announcing health care plans, Mr. Obama plans to meet Thursday with the leaders of a commission that has proposed revamping the legal process for launching military action, to require more consultation between a president and Congress.

The proposal would scrap the problematic War Powers Act of 1973, a measure passed in the hangover from Vietnam to give Congress more say in committing troops to the battlefield but largely honored in the breach ever since by presidents who deemed it unconstitutional. In its place, the commission proposes a law requiring a president to consult lawmakers before any “significant military action” and calling on Congress to vote up or down within 30 days.

The commission, composed of luminaries from both parties, unveiled its plan in July, but it was largely overlooked in the heat of the presidential campaign. Although Mr. Obama has not endorsed the proposal, he could be breathing life into it by meeting with the commission’s chairmen and giving them a high-profile platform to make their case.

[mmonk]

1. Constitution says..................

Congress has the power to declare war, commit or fund troops. It does not say it gives up those rights when they appoint the executive branch commander in chief of armed forces or abdicates those duties in violation of constitutional checks and balances.

[TayTay]

4. But the Commander in Chief has the right

to deal militarily with an "imminent threat" to the safety and security of this country.

Where is the line here? Should the President retain the right, as an Executive, to order the military into action to protect and defend this country in an emergency? At what point does that threat require Congressional approval? The Bush Admin pretty much determined never. They had all the power they needed to wage war without Congressional approval. They also derived the power to wiretap without warrant, hold prisoners without due process, authorize torture and so forth under this provision of assumed presidential power.

This is, for me, the absolute best news of the transition so far. Thank you Mr. President-Elect.

Charlie Savage, former Boston Globe and current NY Times reporter, wrote a http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/11/26/hail_to_the_chief/">Pulizer Prize winning series of columns on just these issues. These are achived at the BGlobe site. Savage also wrote a book, Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy that expands on his findings. This is a great, great read on exploring these issues.

[mmonk]

5. I see no conflict in the Constitution. I do not see a king like power

over military action or conflict or mention of "imminent" threat in the Constitution reserved for the executive branch.

[TayTay]

9. But this is what is under discussion

And I think that discussion is extremely healthy.

I want to know what Obama thinks about the limits of his power and what he can and cannot do. This is a critical thing to get some clarity on, don't you think?

[Hippo_Tron]

6. That interpretation of the constitution would make a whole lot of things unconstitutional

Congress delegates authority to the Executive Branch pretty much every time it creates a Department or an Agency.

[mmonk]

8. Delegating war is a danger.

The writers didn't intend for what has been going on since Vietnam. It's time to return to check and balance concepts since we have been led to this point. Appointing the president as commander in chief of the armed forces after war has been declared by Congress is the proper interpretation. We are living in an era where think tanks conjure up war policy and the President executes it and the congress capitulates. Think tanks and "interests" are unelected. We need to go back and fix it.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. As I said below, I think the key is that they can't revoke the delegation of authority...

Without being subject to the President's veto. Either the law should be re-written so that a simple up or down vote can revoke the authorization of war or do what they do in a lot of cases which is that the President's authority has to be re-authorized every year.

The problem is that the founders never envisioned a permanent standing army with military bases all around the world like we have today. The President can't only be the Commander-In-Chief during wartime, he has to be the Commander-In-Chief during peacetime as well. However, I do think the wording of the constitution makes it very clear that the President is not authorized to conduct a war without congressional approval and that is something that we can indeed carry over to modern times.

[Renew Deal]

2. Interesting stuff

It doesn't sound like they want to make big changes. They just want to give congress a little more input. Congress could only get something done with a major disapproval vote of the presidents actions.

[happychatter]

3. From Reagan's bombing of Tripoli to the invasion of Iraq

they haven't done jack shit

all this posturing and intellectualizing by them, really pisses me off

[Hippo_Tron]

7. There should be a provision allowing Congress to revoke this authority not subject to a veto

Or at least the President's authority to conduct a military operation should come up for re-authorization every year.