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.
