Prof Larry Sabato: "War Powers in the New Constitution"

[understandinglife]

<clip>

This week, I’ll focus on a rebalancing of war powers between the Congress and the President. Both the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts have illustrated a modern imbalance in the constitutional power to wage war. Once Congress consented to these wars, presidents were able to continue them for many years— long after popular support had drastically declined. Limit the president’s war-making authority by creating a provision that requires Congress to vote affirmatively every six months to continue American military involvement. Debate in both houses would be limited so that the vote could not be delayed. If either house of Congress voted to end a war, the president would have no more than one year to withdraw all combat troops.

Citing the need for speed and secrecy, presidents of both parties (Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton) have taken “emergency actions” as they saw fit. The natural tendency in a frightening era, when the nation is under threat, is to defer to a tough-talking president who can take swift action—even if the action is unwise or poorly thought out. And yet, as the war-powers scholar Louis Fisher has argued, “The Framers also lived in a dangerous time, possibly more hazardous than today,” as they faced the superpowers of their era (England, France, and Spain) with few military advantages. “Contemporary Presidential judgments need more, not less, scrutiny,” wrote Fisher, and Iraq surely proves the point. While the press can supply some of that scrutiny, there is no substitute for Congress. Its powers of the purse, subpoena, and Article II’s Senate approval of ambassadors and treaties entitle it to a full share of authority in this most important sphere.

Most important of all, there should be a time limit on unilateral presidential war making—ninety days appears reasonable—at which time Congress would need to either give its assent or, through a resolution of disapproval, cause the orderly withdrawal of American forces. Given that Congress, especially the Senate with its unlimited debate rule, can be dilatory, this new constitutional provision should mandate a congressional vote on military action in both houses, up or down, by the end of the ninety-day period.

The legislative resolution of approval ought also to set a time limit on the grant of war-making power for any conflict—six months, or a year at most. By the end of that time period, Congress should vote either for a continuation of the conflict, or by its disapproval, direct that our military forces be withdrawn on a reasonable timetable. Such a resolution would not be subject to the presidential veto. This resolves the problem of congressional approval, once given, being interpreted by presidents as an endless blank check for years of war—precisely what Lyndon Johnson did after the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution with respect to Vietnam, and George W. Bush did after the 2002 congressional vote on the Iraq War. New information comes to light, and new conditions develop—and Congress should regularly review the situation, checking the president in this life-or-death realm of constitutional power.

The era of open-ended, unilateral war making by presidents should be brought to an end, and it will not happen without a remedy such as the one discussed here. If this be “hamstringing a president,” as critics might charge, it is time to use a little string—and the Vietnam and Iraq wars show why. Should combat be in the American national interest, it ought to find favor in both elective branches, not just one, for we will surely fail to win the battle eventually if the nation is not substantially behind the war effort. All Americans understand that this is not an arcane debate about a few phrases in the Constitution. The most awesome authority contained in the text of our basic document of state is the war-making power. How it is described and allocated determines the fate of millions of our sons and daughters—those who wear the American military uniform. Just as vital, America’s decisions to wage war affect our ability to survive and succeed in a dangerous world. It is long past time to rethink the inadequate constitutional arrangement that was well suited to the eighteenth century but is out of step in the twenty-first.

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/3/143923/764

You can communicate with Prof Sabato via www.amoreperfectconstitution.com

I recommend all you very thoughtful DUer's share your insights with Prof Sabato and share the information he provides with all those whom you think actually care about the rule of law and fostering a version of America that does not treat war as a lucrative market, or racket, as it currently does.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

1. 19 Oct 2007: The National Constitution Convention

Where: The Mellon Auditorium, Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC

Who may attend: Open to the general public

Register to Attend: https://hoosonline.virginia.edu/site/apps/ka/rg/register.asp?c=jlKSL9MWIuG&b=2816605&en=cuJWK8MHIdKTL3MHKjKXK1OOJsL7JcOMKfJPI6OPLcKPKbM0IyF

The Rationale

In 1787 there were furious debates, intense negotiations, and strategic feints and thrusts as the Founders struggled to establish a nation rather than just a loose confederation of states. On October, 19, 2008, at the celebrated Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington, D.C., the University of Virginia Center for Politics will host the National Constitutional Convention. Along with hundreds of participants, including constitutional scholars, elected officials, journalists, and political insiders, the University of Virginia Center for Politics, led by Larry J. Sabato, intends to ask: What if United States were to have such debates, negotiations and maneuvering again, in our own time, with our own issues, with the benefit of over two hundred years of experience? Would experts and the general public vote to amend the Constitution, or would our modern day "delegates" and citizens accept the current document as our nation's best compass for navigating contemporary politics?

The convention, to be moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS's "Face the Nation," will offer a wide range of topics for discussion such as presidential election reform, checking the powers of government, and national service among many other possibilities followed by further debate by the attending "delegates." All in attendance will have the opportunity to vote on each panel topic and render a tentative decision on every reform giving this event the feel of a constitutional convention.

Leading up to the convention, hundreds of thousands of young people across the nation who already participate in the Center's signature program, the national Youth Leadership Initiative, will study constitutional reform, hold their own mock constitutional conventions, and vote on a series of possible reforms in the nation's first national online youth constitutional convention. Video clips of these activities as well as results of the national student convention will be incorporated as part of the symposium with some student participants attending the event.

The goal of the National Constitutional Convention is not to promote one possible reform over another, but rather to spur a grand, national discussion on the Constitution of the United States and whether the cornerstone of our republic could or should be a means of revitalizing civic and political engagement in America, curtailing apathy and renewing confidence in American politics and government.

Many of the nation’s Founders imagined the Constitution would be revisited on a regular basis by the American people. Is it time? We will find out together in an exciting and exceptionally thought-provoking National Constitutional Convention on October 19th, 2007.

[Occulus]

2. Not to be confused with an ACTUAL Constitutional Convention

which would quickly devolve into a massive special-interest disaster of truly epic proportions.