By David Lerman
After decades of turf battles between the White House and Congress over how and when to go to war, a bipartisan commission will issue a report today urging greater collaboration.
The National War Powers Commission, led by two former secretaries of state, will propose a new process of consultation between the executive and legislative branches, said Taylor Reveley, the group's co-director.
Reveley, interim president of the College of William and Mary, said the commission will urge future presidents to consult with members of Congress before deciding whether to use military force abroad.
The commission will also recommend that if the U.S. takes military action that has not been authorized by Congress in advance, the Congress should express its view on whether the action is worth waging within 30 days, Reveley said.
The independent commission, convened by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, is made up of prominent scholars and former officials from all branches of government. The group's co-chairmen, who will present the report today on Capitol Hill, are former Secretaries of State James A. Baker III, a Republican, and Warren Christopher, a Democrat.
Reveley, the former dean of the William and Mary School of Law who authored a book on war powers, said the commission's work did not come in response to political battles over the Iraq war.
``It's not focused on Iraq or Korea or Vietnam or any of that," he said. ``It's about the need going forward to have a practical mechanism to get the two branches to work together. This is something that needed doing for a long, long time."
Congress and the White House have long battled over war powers. While the Constitution makes the president the commander in chief, it gives Congress the power to declare war.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war? Who'da thunk it?
Posted by: MJ | July 8, 2008 6:53 AM
One might assume from the name that the "National War Powers Commission" is a body organized by the government. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's just a private group convened by the University of Virginia's Miller Center, whose head is former Democrat Governor of VA Gerald Baliles. The group's co-director and quoted source, Taylor Reveley, was a big Bill Richardson donor during the presidential primaries.
My prediction is that the media will publicize what this commission says, to the extent these people say things critical of the Bush administration.
Posted by: Bruce | July 8, 2008 9:31 AM
Bruce, what do you think the Commision got wrong? Do you believe the President has the authority to start a war without any Congressional approval?
Posted by: JT | July 8, 2008 10:27 AM
Do you believe the President has the authority to start a war without any Congressional approval?
Posted by: JT | July 8, 2008 10:27 AM
Sounds like you're blaming the executive branch. You should be blaming Congress. They could prevent any undeclared war, but they never have... ever.
Posted by: MJ | July 8, 2008 10:56 AM
I'm not blaming anyone for anything MJ. I was asking Bruce what HIS problem with the commission's recomendations were.
Personally , I agree. Congress has been all too ready to abdicate their war making powers, as exemplified by the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and the AUMF of 2002. The Executive Branch has also been all too willing to accept those powers and stretch them even farther. That trend must stop. The statements from the Republican candidates in their debate on whether they needed Congressional approval to attack Iran were chilling. Most came down as "No, not really."
Posted by: JT | July 8, 2008 11:45 AM
JT -- OK, got it.
Posted by: MJ | July 8, 2008 12:29 PM
Fast Access Report Online:
We have placed the National War Powers Commission Report online.
A PDF reader is not needed.
Each page has its own URL for referencing.
Page loading is very fast.
You can find it at http://publicservice.evendon.net/NWPM.htm
We hope you find this useful.
Don
Posted by: Don Krieger | July 8, 2008 12:50 PM
"JT", perhaps you should actually READ the report prior to commenting on it?
If you did, you'd see that the report''s key (only?) recommendation is a law saying the president must "consult" with Congress if fighting (of any sort) lasts more than a week. That's it. And consultation is something president's already do. If anything, the report endorses the war powers exercised by presidents the last 219 years, all the way back to Founding Fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (quasi-wars with France and the Barbary Pirates, respectively).
See http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/bipartisan-pane.html
and links therein for more.
Posted by: Bruce | July 8, 2008 2:38 PM
So Bruce, if you agree with the report so much, what was the point of your original post? Are you actually admitting that you agree with a bunch of Democrats?
Interesting that you would mention the Quasi-war with France. Many Constitutional scholars see a number of cases arising from that war as showing that the power to start even limited wars resides soley with Congress, specifically in the "Letters of marque and Reprisal" clause.
See Bas vs. Tingy, Talbot Vs. Seeman and most especially Little Vs. Barreme in which the Supreme Court specifically found that the President did NOT have the authority to do more than Congressional approval allowed in authorizing military action, that any order issued by the President beyond the scope of Congressional approval was an illegal order, and that any officer obeying such an illegal order was himself liable to prosecution.
Posted by: JT | July 8, 2008 3:10 PM