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

Small articles for such a big problem:

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...26563920080708

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...ed-rss-netzero

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.