Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times

Lawmaker wants stronger say in declaring war

WASHINGTON — Rep. William Delahunt says it’s high time to start thinking about the next war.

Even as Congress wrestles with attempts to bring home U.S. troops from Iraq, the Massachusetts Democrat is teaming up with some Republican colleagues on legislation to give Congress a stronger say in when the country should go to war.

Delahunt recently joined Republican Reps. Walter Jones of North Carolina, Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas on a measure that would limit the president’s ability to go to war without Congress’ approval.

The resolution would prohibit the president from ordering military action without congressional approval unless the U.S. or its troops were attacked, or if U.S. citizens abroad need to be protected or evacuated.

The bill would amend the War Powers Resolution, which was enacted during the Vietnam War in 1973 over then-President Richard Nixon’s veto. The War Powers Resolution was aimed at restoring Congress’ control over the use of U.S. military force and required the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours. It also required the president to withdraw forces after 60 to 90 days if Congress didn’t explicitly pass an extension. But Congress has often been reluctant to challenge presidents with troops in harms way.

Under the Constitution, lawmakers have the ability to declare war and fund military operations, while the president has control of military forces.

Presidents in recent decades have routinely bypassed Congress when deploying troops to fight. Congress has not issued an official declaration of war since World War II, despite lengthy wars fought in Vietnam and Korea.

But Congress has used its war powers to cut off or put conditions on funding for the Vietnam war and conflicts in Cambodia, Somalia and Bosnia.

The lawmakers said that, given how presidents have wielded their war powers, Congress needs a stronger hand in deciding whether to put U.S. forces in harm’s way. The framers of the Constitution sought to decentralize war powers and create a balance between the political branches, Jones said.

“Throughout American history, this balance too often has been ignored,” Jones, a leading Republican war critic, said at a recent Capitol Hill news conference.

Delahunt complained that President Bush invaded Iraq after “minimal consultation” with Congress. The House and Senate in 2002 approved the use of military force against Iraq.

“This is about lessons learned,” Delahunt said of the proposal. “We were lax. Congress. The Fourth Estate. Everyone.”

The legislation is expected to face an uphill fight in the narrowly divided Congress. Some lawmakers may be wary of undercutting presidential war powers given the terror threat in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“The balance of power already gives Congress the power to declare war and, with its control of the purse strings, the power to end it,” Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Republican Leader John Boehner, said in a statement.

Kennedy added that “the last thing the country needs is 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill.”

Still, backers hope the proposal can spark broad public debate on the issue.

“Let’s get the conversation going, let’s have the debate,” said Delahunt, adding that he’s open to constructive criticism about the proposal.

Recent Bush administration warnings of the threat posed by Iran should provide a sense of urgency for the proposal on Capitol Hill, the bill’s backers said.

“We don’t want the debate after the war,” Paul said.

Virginia Sloan of the Constitution Project, a nonpartisan group that seeks consensus solutions to legal and constitutional questions, said spurring public debate on war powers is vital.

“It has not had nearly the attention paid to it that it deserves, especially when we do have at least some in the executive branch who believe that the president has the exclusive authority to put our armed forces in harm’s way and bypass Congress entirely,” Sloan said.

Sloan’s group worked on the bill. The group has issued a report saying Congress, not the president, should have war powers.

Sloan said that while many in her group see the measure as a step forward, some want an even stronger role for Congress.

“The question is whether this bill gives too much authority to the executive branch at the expense of Congress,” Sloan said.

DISCUSS: Should Congress have more say in declaring war?