Didn't the Legislative Branch Say 'Yes' About Iraq?

I didn't get this when I heard it on the news this morning.

WASHINGTON - Former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher say the next time the president goes to war, Congress should be required to say whether it agrees. The co-chairmen of a bipartisan study group have proposed legislation that would require the president to consult lawmakers before initiating combat lasting longer than a week, except in cases of emergencies. In turn, Congress would have to act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving of the action.

So I went out to power walk, but that didn't improve my understanding. What was the purpose of H.J. Res. 114 (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)? Did the president require anything further?

After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. They lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, and the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's role as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedent.

The Democrats didn't have enough votes to do what they wanted to do. And?

Perhaps I'm missing something. Let's look around and see.

UPDATE: The proposal.

UPDATE: Gabriel Malor notes that I ain't got time for nuance and provides links to his 3-part discussion of AUMFs. Good stuff.

Comments

[Tully]

I don't think you missed a thing.

The WPA was always unconstitutional, though it’s nice to see a few Congressional Democrats finally acknowledging that after 35 years. Attempts to re-write it to give some in Congress what they want it will almost certainly result in either more unconstitutional statutes, or utterly ineffective and pointless legislation.

Essentially the study group is just advocating resetting the WPA to have the same flaws re-argued by phrasing them differently, and the impetus seems to be that Congress is mad it can’t do what it wants to do (overrule and micro-manage the inherent C-in-C war powers) on a simple majority vote. Tough cookies, limp weenies.

Bottom line remains that both Congress and the White House are limited by inherent Constitutional authorities. The idea that Congress could write a War Powers Act (”better legislation”) that would give them electoral cover to hide behind and that would pass constitutional muster is wishful thinking on their part. Short of constitutional amendment nothing will really change there.

Congress already has the tools it needs to do what it wants. Those tools require mustering veto-proof majorities, and the spine to pull funding from troops in the field. The latter requirement pretty much guarantees that the former requirement will be very hard to meet.

[DarkStar]

I always thought that a declaration of war had to be an explicit declaration of war, not "do what is necessary...".

There needs to be an amendment defining the ability to declare war against foreign based terrorist like groups.

I would hope that would force congress to live up to its constitutional duties.

[baldilocks]

What's the purpose of the Department of Defense?

[DarkStar]

It's our military structure but they can't do anything without the orders of the president and not much if not funded by Congress. If the president says don't do anything, they have to do nothing unless it's self defense.

The overall response to the U.S.S. Cole makes that point, right?

My issue, if you want to call it that, is the congress gave authorization to do what was necessary but did not declare war. In reality men and women are still putting their lives at risk to fight terrorism, but it would be nice to follow constitutional procedures.

If the Bush administration could communicate worth a damn, the military action in Iraq could have been explained better and hopefully receive more initial and continued support from the American people.

[Rachel]

It's called "we didn't get political bonuses for Iraq, so let's make sure we don't go to war again unless we can get political bonuses"

To me, this is totally reactionary over the WOT. If it is a true concern, wait until after the election year. Then figure it out.

[Don Meaker]

I think you are right. The Legislature was manipulated into voting to give the President authority conduct war operations against Iraq, by having the vote before the election. Knowing that they would be kicked out of their phoney baloney jobs if they voted against it, they voted for it.

Now that the war is over, AND WON they want a 'do over' so they can get their nutball constituents permission to betray our allies, like was done in South Vietnam.