Kerry committee delves into war powers
Senator John F. Kerry is holding a hearing today on clarifying how the nation should declare war.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is hearing testimony from former secretaries of state Jim Baker and Warren Christopher and former Representative Lee Hamilton, who all favor repealing the 1973 War Powers Act, passed after uncertainty over the role of Congress in authorizing the Korea and Vietnam conflicts.
"There fundamental tension in the way America decides to go to war: the President is commander in chief of the armed forces while Congress has the power to declare war. How these constitutional powers interact is the subject of much debate," Kerry said in his opening statement, without endorsing a particular solution.
His full prepared opening remarks are below:
Today we have the privilege of hosting three of the preeminent statesmen of our time to discuss one of the most vital questions that comes before our democracy: how America goes to war.
Secretaries Baker and Christopher, and Chairman Hamilton, we thank you for joining us today and for your efforts to find a practical solution to this complex problem. Your decades of experience in government, and your firsthand knowledge of this issue, make your testimony before this Committee today especially valuable. We look forward to hearing your views.
There fundamental tension in the way America decides to go to war: the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces while Congress has the power to declare war. How these constitutional powers interact is the subject of much debate.
Uncertainty over Congress’ role in two successive wars—Korea and Vietnam—led to the passage of the War Powers Resolution in 1973. The Resolution, which today’s witnesses recommend repealing, has been controversial since it was enacted over President Nixon’s veto.
The 1973 Resolution represents Congress’s effort to clarify and make concrete its role in the decision to go to war. It requires that the President consult with Congress prior to -- and on a regular basis after -- U.S. forces are deployed. More controversially, the law requires that the President withdraw our forces within 60 days of their deployment into combat, absent specific congressional authorization or an extension of the deadline by Congress.
This approach has raised important questions. Some believe that imposition of a deadline for withdrawal inappropriately constrains the Executive and projects uncertainty to enemies. Others more sympathetic to legislative power have argued that allowing the President to go to war for 60 days or longer without authorization is an indefensible abdication of Congress’ prerogative under the Constitution to declare war.
What is clear to all is that the 1973 War Powers Resolution has not functioned as intended. Presidents since Nixon have questioned the statute’s constitutionality. None have complied by filing a report that would trigger a 60-day deadline for congressional authorization.
Over the years, there have been various efforts within Congress, including by this Committee, to amend the War Powers Resolution. Nonetheless, the fundamental issue remains unresolved.
The National War Powers Commission consciously avoided trying to resolve the constitutional debate or define the contours of each branch’s powers. I appreciate their pragmatic approach.
The Commission’s proposal is the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009. It would repeal the 1973 War Powers Resolution, and provide a new framework for interaction between Congress and the President. The proposed statute would require that the President consult with a newly-formed joint congressional committee prior to ordering the deployment of U.S. armed forces into “significant armed conflict” or, under certain circumstances, within three days of deployment. The statute would also create a mechanism to ensure that both houses of Congress vote on the particular military action within thirty days of the deployment.
In their work on this issue, our witnesses today have struggled to grapple with the exigencies of a global struggle terrorism and the changing nature of America’s military involvements—which today look very different than they did in 1973. As one would expect of an effort from a group of statesmen who have tackled some of the world’s most intractable conflicts, this is a thoughtful and formidable effort, and it is very much worthy of further consideration.
I am sure our witnesses will go into more detail on the specifics of their proposal and look forward to that. Before turning the floor over to Senator Lugar, I would like to once again thank Secretary Baker, Secretary Christopher, and Chairman Hamilton for being here today, and for their insights into this important issue.
Comment
Permalink
EmailThis blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
About Political Intelligence
News from the Washington Bureau
What a bunch of self-serving BS! This country operated for 150 years with Congress declaring war, THEN the president assuming the role of commander-in-chief. Even when faced with the greatest (and only real) threat to our country in the last century in the form of the alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan and having suffered from a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor, FDR did not unilaterally declare war; he went to Congress to ASK for a declaration of war.
If Congress would have a backbone and assert enforcement of the Constitution (and Senator Kerry is a very good example of that cowardice and complicity), then we would never have needed the War Powers Act!!
you need to bone up on your constitution. Article 2, section 2 clause 1.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
I do however, think the president should be limited in his use of military strength by Congress.
How can this President put one of the Most famous cowards
we have ever seen in charge of understanding war powers.
How about a committee to round up all morons who vote for
this loser.The country must be 1/2 moron 1/2 god knows what.
redsoxpagan, the problem is that with or without a war declaration the President is commander-in-chief. So it's not as simple as you make it out to be in the modern age where military actions occur all the time for various reasons not necessarily relating to or because of war, and oh by the way the Barbary Wars never had a formal declaration of war by Congress.....
It's refreshing to see our junior senator actually at work and doing something in Washington for a change. I applaud any effort to restrict the federal government's role in our lives to only that which is explicitly given them by the constitution. We should also be examining the National Emergency Act, and the overhaul of the Patriot Act. Both are too tempting for a president's use during time of national stress, and their tentacles remain long after the crisis has subsided.
Keep the War Powers Act of 1973, but actually ENFORCE it and REPEAL the WAR Authorization Act of 2002. By repealing this War Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–243), Congress will have effectively stopped the legislative process of funding the war, plus send a strong message by revoking any and all authority President Bush may have claimed as Commander In Chief under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. By repealing this law, it may begin the process of troop withdrawal. The opponents of the PL 107-243 argue that Bush Administration’s Iraq policy of “Staying the Course” is the wrong strategy and is, in fact, a threat to national security if we continue to drain our military resources.
On the other hand, if the law is left intact or unchanged, then the United States could be involved in this occupation for another five to ten years or longer, according to some analysts. That would place US troops further in harms way, caught in the middle of a civil and sectarian war. Proponents of the law argue that the United States should stay involved in Iraq and that repealing the law would take crucial support and financial resources away from our armed forces serving in Iraq. Commonly referred to as “Stay the Course” strategy, the President is steadfast in his policy. Additionally, proponents argue that troop withdrawal increases the possibility of the conflict worsening and widening to become a regional conflict, possibly including other nations such as Iran. Therefore, proponents argue that use of military force is still necessary.
Relevant Facts/Key Points -
• In October 2002, Congress authorized the President to use the armed forces of the United States to defend U.S. national security against the threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq (P.L. 107-243).
• There does appear to be historical disagreement between the Legislative branch and Executive branch of government when it comes to control of the US armed forces. Although the US Constitution grants specific powers to the Congress, the President is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed forces.
• The War Powers Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of Congress. The War Powers Act of 1973 describes certain requirements for the President to consult with Congress in regard to decisions that engage US forces in hostilities or imminent hostilities.
• The US Congress, empowered by the Constitution, under Article 1, Section 8, to declare war and to appropriate war funding, has appropriated almost a trillion dollars to date for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. An estimate in 2008 calculated the actual cost as $3 trillion. In contrast, pre-war cost estimates only ranged from $34-69 billion dollars.
• Initially, Congress was overwhelmingly supportive of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Members expressed their strong backing for U.S. military forces in the region and for their families at home. In 2003, Congress also backed the current war effort by approving the largest supplemental appropriations bill in U.S. history. Both the House and the Senate approved a supplemental funding measure, H.R. 1559 (P.L. 108-11), to provide financing for military operations in Iraq, economic aid for foreign governments, and support for homeland security.
• At a cost of almost $3 trillion dollars, some analysts are predicting that the US will be involved in Iraq for the next 5-10 years.
• Several historical precedents have already been set by Congress when invoking the War Powers Act of 1973 and cutting funding for the Iraq War. Some of these past conflicts include: Bosnia, Haiti, Lebanon, Rwanda and Somalia.
• Most Americans (63%) prefer a timetable and/or benchmarks attached to any “War spending bill”, according to a May 2007 Gallup Poll.
Where did the Republican controlled 107th Congress find the political will to pass legislation granting authority to the President to attack Iraq (P.L. 107-243), a little over a year after the 9/11 attacks? There are several possible explanations why authorization was granted so expeditiously and efficiently. First, due to the political climate, essential national debate and discussion was kept to a minimum. Second, prior to this becoming law, the legislative groundwork was already laid. The year before, in 2001, another broad and over-generalized law was passed riding high on anti-terrorism sentiment. Just days after the 9/11 terrorist attack, both the House of Representatives (H.J.RES.64) and the Senate (S.J. Res. 23) passed twin bills that gave the President explicit authorization “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons. States that this Act is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution”.
There is a theory that all wars since WWI have been a manipulation of politics by the banking cartel (corporate elite) of mostly Western Europe and the USA. The Federal Income tax was implemented in 1913 and one year later world war broke out. The Federal Income tax began as a way to finance war. After World War I, the debts being paid to the banking cartel created political extremism and cause the Great Depression, which lead to the rise of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, and then World War II. During the 1930's, FDR abandoned the Gold Standard in order to finance the banking cartel and war. After World War II, Prescott Bush, who is the father & grandfather of Presidents Bush, had millions of dollars of Nazi deposits confiscated by the US Government. Like John Forbes Kerry, all of the Bushes were members of the secret war society "Skull & Bones" with connections to these same banking interests. Presidents Truman through Obama fight unprovoked and unwinnable wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, in order to borrow money from the banking cartel and make the corporate elite more and more wealthy and in control of our World. The Banking Cartel "divides and conquers", which means that they are on both sides of the wars we in the USA & Europe fight. To be clear, if Hitler won World War II, the banks would have profited just as they did when FDR/Truman & Churchill were the victors. The banking cartel does not care if we win or lose in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, meaning millions of lives lost and ruined, but rather, they keep manipulating wars for their own profit so they may someday control or rule the World. 9/11/2001 may have been a conspiracy! - Jonathan Melle
redsoxpagan, Do you think 9/11 was a threat to our country?