Gosh, where are those war powers when you need them? A commission led by two former secretaries of state, James A. Baker, III and Warren Christopher, just released a report urging a revision of the War Powers act. That legislation,......

A consolidated, bipartisan group might actually provide serious advice and gain the trust of the executive to make consultation more attractive.

Like the ones that "consult" on judicial appointments?

When worded that way, no... but that's not the specific issue, then, is it?

It's not? Then what is the specific issue?

I somehow doubt that requiring Congressional approval before taking the nation to war would be "extra-constitutional".

When worded that way, no... but that's not the specific issue, then, is it?

I believe it's still the case that no sitting president, of either party, has conceded the constitutionality of the existing War Powers Act.

Unconstitutionality will never prove a deterrent to Congress's passing a politically motivated bill.

First, even absent a constitutional question, the added stipulations in the proposal can be seen as nothing but power grab, adding requirements of congressional buttkissing on the part of the executive branch which have not been there before, operationally speaking.

Are my sarcasm detectors off today, or are do you actually believe what you're writing?

I wonder a bit that you have such a problem with the concept of adding requirements over and above those imposed by the constitution is not be definition considered on it's face to be extra-constitutional.

I somehow doubt that requiring Congressional approval before taking the nation to war would be "extra-constitutional".

(Shrug) Oh, well;

First, even absent a constitutional question, the added stipulations in the proposal can be seen as nothing but power grab, adding requirements of congressional buttkissing on the part of the executive branch which have not been there before, operationally speaking.

Secondly, as to the constitutional questions, I will research this further,(things get muddy when dealing with the existing war pwoers act) but I wonder a bit that you have such a problem with the concept of adding requirements over and above those imposed by the constitution is not be definition considered on it's face to be extra-constitutional.

Third, the consulting role imposed by the constitution, most certainly dind't have the results in mind that James' snarky response reveals... he's quite right; All this does is give congress critters a chance to grandstand.

(Shrug) Oh, well;

First, even absent a constitutional question, the added stipulations in the proposal can be seen as nothing but power grab, adding requirements of congressional buttkissing on the part of the executive branch which have not been there before, operationally speaking.

Secondly, as to the constitutional questions, I will research this further, but I wonder a bit that you have such a problem with the concept of adding requirements over and above those imposed by the constitution is not be definition considered on it's face to be extra-constitutional.

Secondly, the consulting role imposed by the constitution, most certainly dind't have the results in mind that James' snarky response reveals... he's quote right; All this does is give congress critters a chance to grandstand.

As for changing the law, seems to me the problem isn't getting into wars too easily, it's getting out.

So, that's a function of law?
Or is it a function of winning the war?

As for changing the law, seems to me the problem isn't getting into wars too easily, it's getting out.

I think the underlying problem is Congress's willingness to raise revenue. It isn't specific to one particular party: neither Democrats nor Republicans have any particular opposition to raising revenue they merely have different preferred ways to do it. Democrats tend to look to tax increases; Republicans tend to look to borrowing.

BTW I think these preferences are completely consistent with the two parties' differing core constituencies.

As for changing the law, seems to me the problem isn't getting into wars too easily, it's getting out.

The only way that Congress has to "un-declare" war is to refuse funding. Ever since the Mexican War (er, Mexican-American War, sorry), the war party has been able to beat the tom-toms and accuse its opponents of Not Supporting the Troops if they don't fund 'em. As if they would all be cut off without food, water, or tickets home.

So what about this: Congress declares war for a year at a time, and each additional year of conflict has to be re-declared. I suspect an amendment would have to be enacted, but what about the merits, if any?

Have you ever bothered to read the Constitution? Because if you had, you would know how ridiculous this statement is.

I spent several minutes trying to discern the sarcasm in his statement, refusing to believe that anybody could say such a thing seriously.