hmmmmmm……

See, nowadays the executive branches of countries like the USA, Israel, and Quebec don’t “declare” war on other nations….they just call it a “police action” or a “War on Drugs” or something like that. So, this legislation will not matter because the Imperial Presidency of America will find someway to wage war anyhow as well as keep gas prices high.

sounds good, but I agree with rob. War on what? We are now all familiar with terrorist cells, and several names of liberation movements, sectarian groups, contras, warlords, guerilla groups, and “organizations” which we are supposedly actually fighting. Non-covert operations happen all over the globe by the US and not one is a war on a country.

No change should be made to the War Powers Act.

1. Congress would decide, after consultation with the president, what action to take WITHIN 30 DAYS.

From the time we are attacked, the war could be over in less than 30 days. WE COULD LOSE. Our response should be immediate and relentless, and we should win.

The President is the Commander of our military forces, and must have the authority to counter attack instantly….not sit around gabbing with a bunch of stupid politicians for up to 30 days.

In a worst case scenario, suppose an atomic bomb hit Washington DC and killed the so called “experts” and enough members of congress that they will not have a quorum to do business. Then “special elections” and “appointments” could take a year. We sit by and do nothing in the way of retaliation.

Does that make common sense to any of you?

Robber and Larry, can I explain the discussion to you in simple terms so you can possibly understand.

I am at home sitting at the computer and bullets start flying through my house. Do you think it is reasonable for me to call my Consultant and then Police commissioner and ask for a board meeting to determine whether or not I should shoot back.

You guys are too much!!!

johnh,

Although it is glossed over in the story, I believe that the president would still be able to respond immediately to any threat against national security. Congress would then have 30 days to approve or disapprove any “plans to engage in ’significant armed conflict,’ or non-covert operations lasting longer than a week.” Until Congress specifically disapproved an operation, the president would have authority. Hope this ameliorates your concerns.

I think there is some confusion here – the War Powers act of 1973 gives Congress say in wars that it previously didn’t. In other words, it makes it harder for a President to go to war, not easier.

What is being proposed here is to remove the War Powers act and replace it with something even stronger yet. This is driven by the feeling that the War Powers act failed to have the President and Congress cooperate on the decision to start the current wars.

To the people who want Congress to have more say in war, this is a good thing. Of course, the people who want the President to have even more power to wage war without oversight would disagree.

Personally, I support the new Act. Declaring war should never be taken lightly, or be a knee-jerk decision. This act will force the country to face the decision to wage war – not allow wars to be started in our name that are only considered in retrospect.

BTW, this act will not prevent the President from taking military action as an immediate response to hostility – but it will allow Congress to have a say before he commits our country to an open ended occupation.

There should be a “war” declared to impeached King George II on crimes against humanity.He send our young men and ladies over to some countries run by ruthless thugs to be kill and maimed so King George II,Chenney and his cronnies can keep getting rich off of oil while this country go broke with the working stiffs have to pay $4.00 a gallon for gasoline.

Thank you Steve M. Your post has made the top of my list for the most uneducated ramble of 2008. If you win at the end of the year I will pay for any one class of your choosing at a St Louis Community College campus.

Anonaman is close to right here. The 1973 War Powers Act was designed to place more decision making power in the hands of Congress, as the founders originally intended. The problem was communications at the time the Constitution was written, were not what they would become. (Example: Andrew Jackson’s Battle of New Orleans was fought AFTER the armistice had already been signed by England and the US. Technically, we were no longer at war.) The ‘73 act was designed to address the technological immediacy of decisions, while maintaining the founders’ intent. This plan prevents presidents from weaseling their way around the ‘73 act. On the face of it, the plan of the commission makes sense. I am curious how or if this would affect American participation in United Nations actions and resolutions.

I think it’s reasonable to review the War Powers Act and make changes based on the lessons learned over the past 7 years. I think that the President should have the power to act in emergencies, but there should be a system of checks and balances to protect our country from abuse of such power. I’d like to think that Congress and the President would actually be able to work cordially on an issue like national defense. Maybe the proposed changes will facilitate that.

I’d just note that although I’m sure no President could possible be happy with the War Powers Act of 1973, I couldn’t find an instance where a President did not comply with it.