Er, how about doing it the RIGHT way, Senator Mavrick? - Granite Grok

Er, how about doing it the RIGHT way, Senator Mavrick?

DoubleKabulAnd of course, there is that small thing call “holding someone accountable”, eh?  From CNSNews (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Two members of the Senate are pressing for significant changes to how presidents consult with Congress on sending the military into war.  Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., unveiled legislation on Thursday that would repeal the 1973 War Powers Resolution, often ignored by presidents of both parties, and replace it with a new law that requires greater consultation and a congressional vote within 30 days on any significant armed conflict.

“The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress, but Congress has not formally declared war since June 1942, even though our nation has been involved in dozens of military actions of one scale or another since that time,” McCain said. “There is reason for this: The nature of war is changing.”

I’ve listed the relevant parts of the Constitution as to War responsibilities after the jump.  But ask yourself – if the President (current and past) has unilaterally decided to ignore the US Constitution in ordering our troops into military actions, ignoring the current War Powers Act law, where has the Congress been and done in calling him (and prior Oval Office denizens) to account?  Was the War Powers Resolution written to be Potemkin law – a mere punching bag or an invisibility cloak when needed?  And which is worse – ignoring a law or ignoring the Constitution?  And are Congressman / Senators just using this as a bully pulpit and bellow “We’re being ignored!” without actually have the political courage to do something (e.g., defunding such military actions or impeachment)? 

I agree that the nature of war has changed – and has changed multiple times over the last 350 years with changes in technology (from flintlocks to ICBMs to Biologicals and dirty bombs) and strategy / tactics (from vast lines of soldiers arrayed against each other and “ships of the line” formations to asymmetrical insurgencies by stateless combatants where the theater of war is nowhere and everywhere, and where communications time lapses have gone from months to milliseconds); a War can take a decade or more, or be over in 20 minutes.

Speed of decision CAN and MUST be foremost in the case of advanced technology attack – nuclear, space-based, cyber.  But most of our military engagements have taken the speed of normal for the most part.

Since the Vietnam War-era resolution, the U.S. military has been involved in several conflicts, most recently when President Barack Obama sent American warplanes to protect civilians in Libya in 2011. The operation touched off a fierce debate in Congress over whether the president had exceeded his authority.  Obama’s initial call last year for congressional approval for U.S. military action against Syria revived the debate.  “Forty years of a failed war powers resolution in today’s dangerous world suggests that it’s time now to get back in and to do some careful deliberation, to update and normalize the appropriate level of consultation between a president and the legislature,” Kaine said.  The proposal would require the president to consult with Congress “before ordering deployment into a ‘significant armed conflict,’ or, combat operations lasting, or expected to last, more than seven days.” The consultation must occur within three days of deployment…The measure also would require a vote in Congress on the military operation within 30 days.

Pixie dust and fairy spells.  Unfortunately, with this President who has already shown a propensity to ignore current law and Constitutional strictures, ya think this is going to stop him or his successors?  And even MORE unfortunately, there is NOTHING in the article that speaks to the really important issue:

And what is the accountability process if this is ignore just as the War Powers Act has been ignored?  Are Senator Maverick and his sidekick Senator Grahmnesty and others (and their compatriots on the other side if the Rs were to hold the Presidency) actually going to do something when this is ignored?  When their Constitutional charge to be the entity that declares wars is subsumed by the President?

Here at GraniteGrok, we often whale on (and wail at) the Democrats and the Republicans.  Here, the larger problem is exposed:

Are the Branches of Governmentcollapsing into a single entity due to large talk but no action to defend their Constitutionally specified turf?

And if that is true (and we have seen Obama consolidating a Unitary President on multiple occasions wielding both Executive AND Legislative responsibilities), are we as Levin has stated, “Post-Constitutional”?  And if so:

  • How long does our Constitutional Republic has before it is unrecognizable?
  • Can we recover and unwind the mindsets that the Constitution is just an old piece of paper?

And fitting into those questions, consider all of the above a REAL long run up to this question:

If it is THAT important for the security of the nation and the integrity of the Constitution, why isn’t McCain offering a Constitutional Amendment?

I’m no lawyer and I’m no scholar – just an ordinary schlub in central New Hampsha.  However, as a decently educated layman, if this is such import that the Constitution, with what I believe it’s plain language, declaration and execution by the two Branches, will yet another law be any more effective?  I doubt it.  But given the serious nature of the issue, the struggle between the branches as to who should be doing what, isn’t it better and wiser to change our base law than just another statute?

Here is what the Constitution actually states in Article 1, Section 8 about War and the Legislative Branch’s responsibilities for it:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article II, Section 2 deals with Presidential responsibilities:

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 offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

 

 

 

 

>