The president should be forced by law to consult Congress before going to war

[geetrue]

Small articles for such a big problem:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0826563920080708

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1820879,00.html?xid=feed-rss-netzero

[nikimcbee]

I thought the Constitution already adressed this issue.

[August]

I thought the Constitution already adressed this issue.

It does but Congress has been ever willing as time goes by to let the President make any decisions that have backlash potential.

IMO this law is designed more to force Congress to do it's constitutional duty than it is to restrict the President.

[SUBMAN1]

The Pres can go to war/Immediate conflict at any time he wants. For full scale declaration of war however, only congress has that authority.

This allows the president to do what is needed at an immediate time. Congress however must aloow that war or small scale conflict to continue since the president does not have the authority to maintain it.

ie. The pres can strike Iran, and invade Iran, but if we are to stay in a war with Iran, then Congress must be involved.

Now here's the funny thing - President Bush is the 'first' president in history to 'ever' ask Congress before commiting troops in both Iraq and Afganistan. Congress agreed and he went ahead and did what he had to do. Funny how the democrats play it that he did it all alone.

Tired of the finger pointing in politics. We need to fire every last one of them and replace them all!

-S

[geetrue]

If they pass this proposed law ... they would have to take the President's veto powers away at the same time and that ain't going to happen.

[August]

ie. The pres can strike Iran, and invade Iran, but if we are to stay in a war with Iran, then Congress must be involved.

And therein lies the problem. By the time Congress becomes involved the war has already been started, blood has been spilled. What are they gonna do at that point, try to call it off? It's a fait accompli and that's NOT what the founding fathers intended.

[SUBMAN1]

ie. The pres can strike Iran, and invade Iran, but if we are to stay in a war with Iran, then Congress must be involved.
And therein lies the problem. By the time Congress becomes involved the war has already been started, blood has been spilled. What are they gonna do at that point, try to call it off? It's a fait accompli and that's NOT what the founding fathers intended.I hear ya, but on the flip side, Congress is a slow boat to China and has no ability to act quickly as needed. You must take the good with the bad here I guess.

-S

[August]

I hear ya, but on the flip side, Congress is a slow boat to China and has no ability to act quickly as needed. You must take the good with the bad here I guess.

-S

If we're talking about launching our ICBMs before the Russkies can wipe them out in a massive first strike then I'd agree but when we're talking about putting Soldier boots on the ground in an foreign country I say Congress needs to give it's blessing first.

[SUBMAN1]

I hear ya, but on the flip side, Congress is a slow boat to China and has no ability to act quickly as needed. You must take the good with the bad here I guess.

-S
If we're talking about launching our ICBMs before the Russkies can wipe them out in a massive first strike then I'd agree but when we're talking about putting Soldier boots on the ground in an foreign country I say Congress needs to give it's blessing first.They may take you 2 years to get past the bickering! And in the meantime, a foreign army would have over-run everything making pushing them back a bloody task from hell!

-S

[August]

They may take you 2 years to get past the bickering! And in the meantime, a foreign army would have over-run everything making pushing them back a bloody task from hell!

If it takes two years for Congress to debate the issue then maybe, just maybe mind, the cause wasn't all that justified to start with.

Let a foreign army invade US territory and i seriously doubt Congress would take much time in voting for war.

[SUBMAN1]

They may take you 2 years to get past the bickering! And in the meantime, a foreign army would have over-run everything making pushing them back a bloody task from hell!
If it takes two years for Congress to debate the issue then maybe, just maybe mind, the cause wasn't all that justified to start with.

Let a foreign army invade US territory and i seriously doubt Congress would take much time in voting for war.Thats the problem - how long do you have to wait for Congress to assemble and declare war? There is a reason things are the way they are, and this is why things are the way they are right now.

How pathetic our Congress is right now, I wouldn't be surprised if they just said - go ahead and give them the small chunk of land they already captured!

-S

[geetrue]

Let a foreign army invade US territory and i seriously doubt Congress would take much time in voting for war.

What about a PT boat attacking a poor little destroyer in the South China Sea?

[August]

Let a foreign army invade US territory and i seriously doubt Congress would take much time in voting for war.
What about a PT boat attacking a poor little destroyer in the South China Sea?

Nice ninja Gulf of Tonkin incident reference!

To answer your question though, our military forces have the right to defend themselves against attack without a Congressional declaration of war. That shouldn't be used to justify landing ground troops in a foreign country however.

[August]

Thats the problem - how long do you have to wait for Congress to assemble and declare war? There is a reason things are the way they are, and this is why things are the way they are right now.

Care to give a RL example of Congress EVER taking too long to declare war in response to an attack on us by a foreign power?

[Skybird]

Make sure the sons and daughters of all who have a vote in deciding about war and peace cannot evade to serve at the front, not in just a home-based reserve unit. that would decrease the probability of a premature decision in favour of war significantly.

[Platapus]

The tricky part is the word "war".

War can mean several things.

1. It can mean an emotional commitment -- War on Drugs, War on Poverty. One could include the War on Terrorism in this as terrorism is a tactic.

2. It can mean a legal state as recognized by myriad international laws. It is this legal status that many of the laws address.

3. However, it can also mean military activity not a war. The military often refers to this as OOTW or Operations Other Than War. Having been in the military and having people shoot at me, this distinction is academic in nature only. Legally the unpleasantness in Korea was a police action but to the solders there, it sure seemed like a war.

So before we an address the topic question, we have to be careful which interpretation we are using.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution designates the Congress as having the authority to declare war. Using this as the citation for war state number 2, then the question is moot as the President does not have the authority to declare war, only the congress.

But than along came 1973...

Public Law 93-148 dated 7 Nov 73 commonly called "The War Powers Act".

Amongst the mumbo jumbo of this law, there is a provision for the President, under restrictive situations, is allowed to initiate military forces against another state or group providing that the President:

Within 48 hours of the start of military action reports to Congress and provides the following

a. The circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

b. The constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

c. The estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

Here is the catch

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress

(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,

(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or

(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.

Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

So the President can use military forces, under specific situations, for a maximum of 60 (90) days before the Congress must either declare war or authorize military action.

Due to the interpretations of some international laws, the formal declaration of war has fallen out of favour these days. This is why the United States has not been legally "at war" since 1945.

So as long as there is no use of Military forces, the "emotional" definition of war is open to the President without restriction.

The Legal state of war can only be declared by the US Congress.

OOTW can be initiated for a maximum of 60 days (90 in case of extreme situation) before Congress either

1. Stops the activity and orders the recall of military forces
2. Formally declares war
3. Authorizes military OOTW

[geetrue]

not in just a home-based reserve unit


At one point in time during the war in Iraq almost half of the troops were from the reserves ... they have served and continue to serve.

Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=reserve+troops+in+Iraq&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

Aug 26, 2007 ... Acevedo said sending more troops to Iraq would be a costly blunder. "By increasing the number of National Guard and reserve troops, ...-

The movement of a brigade comes as officials have raised doubts about possi


Feb 1, 2007 ... Previously, reserve troops in Iraq typically served 18 months on active duty: six months in pre-deployment training and 12 months on the ...

In a sign that the United States military is being stretched to the limit to sustain is open-ended occupation of Iraq, the US Army last Friday ordered about ...


Feb 12, 2008 ... At certain times in 2005, members of the Guard and Reserve made up nearly half the troops fighting in Iraq. Overall, they were nearly 28 ...


Feb 12, 2008 ... Washington - National Guard and Reserve troops who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan make up more than half of veterans who committed ...


The Air Force has had the highest percentage of reserve troops deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. From Sept 2001 - Jan 2005, 33 percent of all Air Force ...

[Skybird]

not in just a home-based reserve unit


At one point in time during the war in Iraq almost half of the troops were from the reserves ... they have served and continue to serve.

Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=reserve+troops+in+Iraq&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

Aug 26, 2007 ... Acevedo said sending more troops to Iraq would be a costly blunder. "By increasing the number of National Guard and reserve troops, ...-

The movement of a brigade comes as officials have raised doubts about possi


Feb 1, 2007 ... Previously, reserve troops in Iraq typically served 18 months on active duty: six months in pre-deployment training and 12 months on the ...

In a sign that the United States military is being stretched to the limit to sustain is open-ended occupation of Iraq, the US Army last Friday ordered about ...


Feb 12, 2008 ... At certain times in 2005, members of the Guard and Reserve made up nearly half the troops fighting in Iraq. Overall, they were nearly 28 ...


Feb 12, 2008 ... Washington - National Guard and Reserve troops who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan make up more than half of veterans who committed ...


The Air Force has had the highest percentage of reserve troops deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. From Sept 2001 - Jan 2005, 33 percent of all Air Force ...

I think you got my idea i was after, despite your explicit explanation, didn't you. ;)

[August]

The point is that ALL US reserve units are based at home until, like the National Guard, they are ordered to active Federal service overseas.

Their pay is from the Federal Government, their uniforms say "US Army", "US Airforce", "US Navy" or "USMC", their officers hold Federal Commissions and their oaths are to defend the Constitution of the United States of America as opposed to a particular US state or commonwealth.

They are Federal troops as much as the regular military and anyone who claims they are places to shirk dangerous service defames their achievements and insults their valuable service to the nation. :nope:

[Frame57]

They are pretty good at giving themselves pay raises!:nope:

[August]

They are pretty good at giving themselves pay raises!:nope:

:D Yeah for those they'll even pull an all nighter hoping to catch the electorate asleep...

[SUBMAN1]

I see a bunch of yes's in your poll! Strange, but the one war everyone is complaining about, Congress still put its rubber stamp on it, so we can see how effective this policy would be if it were in place!

-S

[August]

I see a bunch of yes's in your poll! Strange, but the one war everyone is complaining about, Congress still put its rubber stamp on it, so we can see how effective this policy would be if it were in place!

-S

On the other hand even if you're right what could it hurt?

[SUBMAN1]

I see a bunch of yes's in your poll! Strange, but the one war everyone is complaining about, Congress still put its rubber stamp on it, so we can see how effective this policy would be if it were in place!

-S
On the other hand even if you're right what could it hurt?I think its a great formality, but not a neccesary one.

-S

[Sailor Steve]

I think it could hurt a lot.

Congress and the President might actually have to talk to each other!

[SUBMAN1]

I think it could hurt a lot.

Congress and the President might actually have to talk to each other!Are you really sure that anyone would want to talk to this Congress? They are the biggest waste of hot air in a Century! They can't accomplish squat! Probably better that things stay with the pres in the case of this pathetic Congress!

-S

[Peto]

I agree with what you said earlier SUBMAN. Fire the lot of them and start over. Let's see if we can get everyone to vote against who ever is currently in office this November :hmm:.

[Platapus]

A good political platform is "when in doubt, vote em out!"

[Stealth Hunter]

They are pretty good at giving themselves pay raises!:nope:

:yep:

[Sailor Steve]

I think it could hurt a lot.

Congress and the President might actually have to talk to each other!Are you really sure that anyone would want to talk to this Congress? They are the biggest waste of hot air in a Century! They can't accomplish squat! Probably better that things stay with the pres in the case of this pathetic Congress!

-S
I don't take sides. You hate the congress. Others hate the president. Nothing has changed in the last 219 years. The country is going to hell in a handbasket - ask either side.