05.14.07 WAR [Powers Resolution] . . . What is it good for?

Public Law 93-148 passed in 1973 is commonly known as the War Powers Resolution. Not so common is what the War Powers Resolution actually means let alone what it actually does. From its inception it has been controversial. It was passed over Nixon’s veto in November of 1973. Applying the War Powers Resolution has been problematic. Its constitutionality frequently challenged.

Here are its essential pieces:

“. . .

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities,

. . .

SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities

. . .

Section 4, a 3) report (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.

. . .

SEC. 5. (b) 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. . .

. . .”

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to consult, report and submit to Congressional authority before, during and after commiting U.S. troops into hostilities. Such checking and balancing sounds reasonable. Presidents have submitted 111 reports in compliance with the War Powers Resolution. Yet few, if any, have terminated the deployment of troops in its wake. Presidents have all claimed that it unduly intrudes on the Constitutions’ Commander-in-Chief role. This is at the heart of the current clash between Congress and President Bush over the war in Iraq.

Despite the confusion over its meaning the intent of the War Powers Resolution was honorable. At issue was clarifying the proper role granted our institutions of government during war time. Clearly the framers did not intend our President to serve unchecked as Commander-in-Chief. Nor did they intend our Congress to micro-manage foreign conflicts.

It is difficult to imagine anything positive will come from our war in Iraq. Then again bringing greater clarity between the war making functions of both the Congress and the President will benefit future generations. The War Powers Resolution is good for us . . . if only we knew how it worked.