Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Panel Questions Executive War Powers


A panel headed by James Baker and Warren Christopher questions weather congress should have more responsibility when the U.S. goes to war.
The next time the president goes to war, Congress should be consulted and vote on whether it agrees, according to a bipartisan study group...

Here's an idea. Why doesn't the President and congress do exactly what the constitution says they have to before sending us to war? Isn't it article 1, section 8, clause 11 that reserves the right to declare war with congress?

The only power the constitution gives to the President for making war is "leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." Clearly the framers intended for the executive powers to be strictly limited to an immediate, defensive stance, not one of offense.

2 comments:

Xavier Onassis said...

On this subject we agree.

Congress abdicated it's responsibility wih the Executive War Powers act.

It was a political no brainer, at the time.

Why should every member of congress risk re-election by authorizing war when we can clearly lay the blame on one person who can only serve two terms?

Duh!

But the Constitution clearly lays that responsibility not just on Congress, but on all of us.

We need to return to the notion that only an Act Of Congress can make a Declaration of War and return Presidential authority to repelling foreign attacks upon our soil.

Wouldn't that be a "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution and fully in keeping with the Conservative creed?

George said...

apropos, Charlie Rose interviewed both Christopher and Baker on July 9 about this issue. Here is the video which is very interesting. It goes into more depth than the article.

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/7/8/1/a-conversation-with-james-baker-and-warren-christopher