I pose the following question for discussion: is it time to revise the War Powers Resolution of 1973?

Here is some background on the War Powers Resolution. The Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to declare and fund wars (power of the purse), while the President shall have the power to execute and command such wars (power of the sword). Furthermore, the President is sworn to an oath to protect our nation and it's constitution.

After the Korean War and the Vietnam War, Congress felt that the President was over-stepping their boundaries in terms of military conflict. Neither of these wars were declared wars, but rather pro-longed military engagements. It was argued that these conflicts were essentially the same as wars, but that the President has side-stepped Congressional power and oversight to declare a war.

This argument is predicated largely upon such Just War Theories as Ad Jus Bellum, by Hugo Grotius, among others. Applied to a democracy, it leads to a belief that the decision to create war should be divided into as many different voices. Allowing the president to unilaterally engage in war-like military engagements with no oversight.

This leads to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. It states that the President must notify congress within 48 hours of deciding to commit troops, and that the President may not keep troops in any one commitment beyond 60 days, after which, approval must be made by Congress to keep such troops in any one area for any pro-longed period of time.

The case for why we should revise the War Powers Resolution is a technological one. Our technology has advanced to such a point, that a country can be essentially conquered within two months. Most countries simply cannot compete with the U.S. military to prolong a war for a period of time where the Clause of Authorization of the WPR would kick in.

With improving technology, the effectiveness of the WPR will further erode.

As such, it means that one person unilaterally has the power to invade and defeat most other nations, with no oversight by anyone else. Doesn't this seem to interfere with our notions of Checks and Balances? Doesn't it seem trouble-some that any one individual can wage war on another nation with no one else having a say?

__________________
A [person] has a property in [their] opinions and the free communication of them. -James Madison

So strong is this propensity of [humanity] to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts -James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10

James Madison for President -White Fox

I see where you're going, but you have to realize, there's a "rules of engagement" that even affects Washington D.C. Aside from a full-scale invasion, I seriously doubt the President will just haul off and do something without the approval of congress. Political party, aside.

I mean...technically, he can, but that doing so would be nothing short of party suicide, and with today's hyper-selfish politicians, that's the LAST thing they want to do.

__________________
"It's the rich people's fault they earn more." - Makedde

I think it is relevant in the after-math of the Iraq War. We found out now that the information was wrong (and I care not to get into another debate about whether he knew or not, or lied, or whatever, that isn't the point). Given that it turned out to be incorrect, wouldn't it have been better to have more time to analyze the information, and not put it solely in the hands of one person to make that decision.

You may argue that Congress did approve that action under the AUMF, but the AUMF didn't directly declare war. Congress was persuaded to pass it on high opinion from a populace still angry about 9/11, which led to the declaration of war. I believe that President Bush would have (and legally could have) invaded Iraq even if Congress told him to go to hell.

That aside, let's suppose that Congress had not passed the AUMF. President Bush still believed invading Iraq was of high-priority, and under the current WPR, could have invaded Iraq with out Congressional approval. Given that by the 60-day mark, we had all but completely defeated Iraq, doesn't that put sole power of war in the hands of one person? His rhetoric at the time supported the notion that we were going to invade, and high opinion polls supported this. So, in the future, if a president (party aside) were to convince the populace that action was necessary (and suppose that action were inevitably found to be wrong), he/she could invade a country, supported by high opinion polls, defeat a nation within 60 days, and Congress would have no say in it.

I agree that in most cases, this would be unlikely, because without high support of the populace, it would effectively be political suicide. In that case, all you would need is high-popular support. I don't have a lot of confidence in the majority of the population to resist nationalist appeals and propaganda.

__________________
A [person] has a property in [their] opinions and the free communication of them. -James Madison

So strong is this propensity of [humanity] to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts -James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10

James Madison for President -White Fox

Here! Here! What Pfaff said. Well done!

Toss the War Powers Act and follow the Constitution, which states that only Congress has the right to declare war. It was established that way for a reason and there are good reasons as Pfaff has so astutely outlined.

Had there been no War Powers Act I doubt very seriously that we would have been in Vietnam or Iraq, two huge American tragedies. So far about 55,000 American war dead would be the best argument I know to consider tossing the War Powers Act.

Great thread, Pfaff!

__________________
You, you, and you, panic. The rest of you follow me.

Last book read: "Child 44"
Now reading: "Tree of Smoke"

Agreed!

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

I think, instead, we elect Senators and Congressmen with SPINES who will look closely at the rationale for war and STAND UP when they have to, instead of rolling over on their backs and shooting a little jet of fear pee into the air when someone says they might not be as patriotic as them.

__________________
Putting the partisan signature on hiatus until I get back. Then... WATCH OUT!!!

You bring up a great point. I don't know the solutions you would write down into law to ensure that we do not engage in unjust wars. If Congress is just as swayed by nationalistic appeals, than it doesn't matter how many checks you have.

__________________
A [person] has a property in [their] opinions and the free communication of them. -James Madison

So strong is this propensity of [humanity] to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts -James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10

James Madison for President -White Fox

I believe it should be repealed and the powers to declare war should be reverted back to the constitution (I guess I am a bit of a conservative in this approach).

However, that does bring up a problem of hammering out legislation for humanitarian crises that need rapid response, so I think there should be some kind of bill that designates the use of rapid deployment of armed forces for humanitarian reasons. But that brings up a whole new series of problems that I am not willing to address at this point.

The point being, I agree with Pfaff that we don't need any more Grenadas and Panamas.

__________________
Signature: