"First, formalize the recent tradition of resolutions (Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq) authorizing the initiation of war, recognizing them as the functional equivalent of a declaration of war.
Second, establish special procedures for operations requiring immediacy and surprise, for example, notification of the House speaker, Senate majority leader and their opposition counterparts, in secret if necessary.
Third, in such cases, require retroactive authorization by the full Congress within an agreed period — but without any further congressional involvement (contra the War Powers Resolution). The Constitution’s original grant of power to Congress was for a one-time authorization, with no further congressional constraint on executive war-making except, of course, through the power of the purse." Krauthammer
------------------------------
I believe Krauthammer is right in this opinion. The WPA was the fevered outcome of the kind of public war weariness that now afflicts the Republic. A rationalization of the constitutional powers of the president as commander in chief is badly needed to avoid the kind of farse that we periodically endure in crises. pl
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-takes-us-to-war/2011/06/23/AGwFS4hH_story.html
I believe Krauthammer is right in this opinion.
Something about a broken clock occasionally finding an acorn comes to mind.
Posted by: Cato the Censor | 24 June 2011 at 10:30 AM
It amazes me how these neocons find their sins so much more odious when practiced by someone other than their ilk. Where was Krauthammer when Bush was violating the War Powers act, where was the outrage by Republicans in the congress then.
I agree it should be fixed but how handy that Republicans decide it needs fixing when a Democrat is president, not when a Republican is.
Posted by: Nancy K | 24 June 2011 at 05:16 PM
NancyK
Let's not go overboard. So far as my "little gray cells" recall, Bush asked for and received congressional resolutions supporting his wars. someone will correct me if that is wrong. pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 24 June 2011 at 05:55 PM
Cato,
I too believe Krauthammer is right.
Something about a blind sow is right twice a day comes to mind....
Russ
Posted by: Russ Wagenfeld | 24 June 2011 at 09:54 PM
The problem of course is that many terms in the Constitution are undefined including "war"!
The anti-inellectualism in America including SCOTUS that if faced with construction of the War Powers Act is unlikely to grant standing even to Members of Congress to contest violation is just indicative that the so-called public intellectual has long faded in the USA. We have decided to have a collective lobotomy in our polity and therefore are now totally in the care of others.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 25 June 2011 at 09:41 AM
If you truly believe that a congressional approval for actions in Libya wouldn't come with riders attached repealing DADT as well as the health care legislation recently passed you are deluding only yourself.
Posted by: Davebo | 27 June 2011 at 10:44 AM
Bush's party held both chambers of Congress. I think Obama's expectation is that his opponents will use the whole episode as another opportunity to attack his administration.
Posted by: Medicine Man | 28 June 2011 at 01:08 PM