The War Powers Act and the ratchet of Power

[cthulu2016]

At some point in the nuclear age we figured out that in any scenario where we would conduct military action against the USSR it was impossible for Congress to have oversight of those actions.

Not just unwieldy, but impossible. Time frames measured in minutes. Their missiles are in the air... do we launch a retaliatory strike? Their missiles are being fuled... do we strike the silos pre-emptively? That sort of thing.

Technology had rendered a provision of the Constitution obsolete. And for real. No argument there.

And if we are forced to give the President unilateral authority to destroy the world it seems perverse to tie his hands in short time-frame decisions short of destroying the world.

So the forced grant of VAST power to wage nuclear war, in the way accretion of power is often a one-way ratchet-effect, subsumed an unforced grant of sweeping smaller powers.

We just threw up our hands and said the President can do whatever he wants during a period of... is it 90 days?

Despite that history and the obvious necessity of much of the frame-work, however, it seems that when America itself is not threatened and a belligerent action is a largely symbolic expression of a presidential policy or a geo-political strategic calculation that the action should follow on deliberation and assent from Congress.

And establishing trip-wires for military conflict should require deliberation and assent from Congress. For instance, a law stating that the President is authorized to blow up people who use chemical weapons, at his discretion, within the framework of the War Powers Act, would do the trick and could be debated and passed when the policy was first established, rather than in the tumult of reaction.

I am speaking broadly and philosophically here, of course. There is no "Obama bad" here. Within the established frame-work there would be nothing extraordinary about bombing Syria. If Congress was that upset about such acts it could write laws limiting such acts.

And in practical terms, there is no human activity or endeavor whatsoever that would be improved by the oversight of the current House of Representatives.

[newfie11]

1. Kick

[dipsydoodle]

2. I thought you needed Congressional approval ?

42m ago

Carney's asked: Cameron's convening parliament. Why can't Obama convene Congress?

Answer: "Obviously this is a different country with a different form of government."

43m ago

Carney is asked, is it true that the president has no plans to call on Congress to convene to vote on a war resolution before any strike on Syria?

"I don't want to engage in speculation," Carney says. "When the president has an announcement to make, he'll make it."

"We are consulting directly with House and Senate leaders... that process will continue."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/27/syria-crisis-military-intervention-un-inspectors

[cthulu2016]

3. Legally, the president can do whatever he wants, but has to then

file a report with Congress with a certain time-frame (I don't recall whether it's 30, 60 or 90 days... it's a while) and Congress then has the option of making the President stop the action... assuming it isn't in the past tense by that point. Which it usually is.

[dipsydoodle]

4. In that case I would imagine a President

could also help ensure his party was out on their ear come next elections.

[jakeXT]

5. oh boy....

We will be so happy if the US and UK attack Syria. I believe the US and British army would attack all the regime's defences as well as some positions of the (Free Syrian Army). They are not happy with all the fighters who are working with FSA. [...]