TV Schedule

Panel calls for new war powers legislation

  2. necrotized
  3. related topics
A bi-partisan study group has proposed a revision of the way the President and Congress issue declarations of war. This statute would allow for better checks and balances in future engagements and would, in theory, allow a more informed decision to be made by allowing members of an advisory committee comprised of both the House and the Senate access to classified information being used as a justification for declaring war.

From the Associated Press article:

"In a report released Tuesday, the panel says the current law governing the nation's war powers has failed to promote cooperation between the executive and legislative branches. It says the 1973 resolution should be repealed and replaced with new legislation that would require the president to inform Congress of any plans to engage in "significant armed conflict," or non-covert operations lasting longer than a week.

In turn, Congress would act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving the action."

Too little too late?
necrotized

18 responses // Panel calls for new war powers legislation

  • Well, this is probably the first real work this Congress has done. Between vacations and the usual counterproductive rhetoric, not much intelligence has prevailed until now. This new legislation would reduce the chances of warmongers utilizing warfare as a suitable instrument of public policy - unless the 'advisory committee" is comprised entirely of buffoons...
    CicatrizJCP
    1 response to this
  • we are stupid to think that this will stop war mongers like bush i have realized that congress is not run by the people its run by the dollar so no matter what laws are past there will always be that million dollar loop-hole
    shaggy83
  • I think it is a good move. It will at least raise the pre- assessment and accountability of it.
    stopnoise
  • The current war powers act is broken and clearly needs fixed. I think this is a great start. Yea, it might not keep an extremist president from claiming constitutional authority to ignore congress, but at least it adds some structure to a system that is currently completely worthless.
    craigers
  • See. They can play nice when their jobs are at stake. Now if we could just get them to make a little progress in election reform, maybe the people can get back a part of our government.
    bluestranger
  • I don't see a compromise on this with the current administration. They think the Commander in Chief is like an omniscient war declarer. Don't we have a constitution?? The WarPowers Act needs to be enforceable.
    JudahEvan
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl0equT8aBM&eurl=http://...
    The truth.
    Psychedelic
  • Tricky GW managed to squeak by on legal terminology... I think they called this invasion a "Police Action" to get around the legal issues.
    Stradius
  • It definitely needs amending, asshole got around it and look at the killing he has caused and the chaos in the world he has caused with his killing machine and his greed. Maybe congress can help avoid another disaster by changing the laws. I said maybe because this congress except for a few good people seems to be useless, self serving idiots.
    Robroy1
  • This is all a bunch of unnecassary bullshit and a waste of taxpayer money. If they would read the Constitution,(you remember that piece of paper right?The LAW OF THE LAND!!!)it says right there in Article1 Section 8;The congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes,to borrow money on the credit of the United States,to regulate commerce with foreign nations,to coin money,to promote the progress of science and useful arts,and DECLARE WAR!! It doesn't say a damn thing about the president. Therefore any military conflict without debate and consent of the ENTIRE CONGRESS is illegal according to our Constitution!! This is probably why the supreme court has not wieghed in on the issue' All this blather about police actions, etc. is just our government trying to pull the wool over our eyes AND WE ARE ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN!! Over and over again.Stop the madness.TO THE STREETS!!!
    recommended by  Vierotchka
    pissedoffinarkansas
  • I think this is basically a good thing that at least we will be talking about this issue in our country again, as we did in the early 1970's, about whether the President has the sole power to declare war in our country, or whether the Congress has to declare war with him, or instead of him. We should have at least been talking about this issue for the last five years. I like the intent behind this bill, because it seems to force the President to take advice from independent advisors other than those on his staff (i.e. Congress).
    lavenderballoon
  • As long as it takes only takes 30 minutes to take effect.

    However we have come to expect the congress to take months instead of minutes
    clayjj05
  • This will only work if one party is in the White House and the other controls Congress. Bush was given the green light on everything he asked for when the Republicans controlled Congress. The same would have happened with Clinton if the Democrats had controlled Congress during his administration.
    sonnydenbow
  • As war is becoming ever more profitable, and as long as private contractors like Blackwater and Halliburton can bank on disaster capitalism, presidents with connections to these companies will be in their pockets.
    christopherwalls
  • If the president is pre-screening intelligence then it doesn't really matter because they will just see intelligence that supports his view.
    osiris326
  • A popular vote should decide whether to go to war or not.
    Dmitri_Molotov
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_...
    The President is bound by all treaties and constitutional laws in effect during his tenure, therefore the willful circumvention of Geneva Conventions was sufficient grounds for impeachment if we truly had an opposition party in the legislative branch.

    As for the War Powers, it is useful to look back at our military history and see that with lap-dog legislatures, the only president to break the law was actually Bill Clinton with Kosovo:

    Wikipedia:
    "In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, a debate emerged about the extent of presidential power in deploying troops without a declaration of war. A compromise in the debate was reached with the War Powers Resolution. This act clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the United States and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress regarding the status of such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American forces could be employed without a formal declaration of war.

    Although the constitutionality of the act has never been tested, it is usually followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. The only exception was President Clinton's use of U.S. troops in the 78-day NATO air campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo War. In all other cases, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act."
    BlueDotProdux

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.