Posts
Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker reacts to the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009, which would "reform" the War Powers Act of 1973.
Corker thinks it would make an already neutered committee even more stripped re: war consultation.
Listen to Corker here, or read him below.
I think to the extent you establish staff with a consultative group, I think it does, in fact, give the President one hand, one place to go. I think in the process of giving the President one place to go, I think that the other committees of jurisdiction end up sort of becoming even more irrelevant, which were already, in fairness -- this committee's pretty irrelevant as it relates to those kind of actions, anyway.
That's just the way it is. I'm not complaining, but it seems to me that this committee with staff could end up creating a situation where armed services, intelligence, foreign relations, even become less relevant in the process.
The Act of 2009 was the result of a bipartisan commission led by James Baker and Warren Christopher.
To read more about the act and what it aims to redress, click here.
To read the act, in all its pdf fun, click here.
Eric Posner gives an easily-digestable capsule, and comes to the conclusion that the act that's intended to give Congress more say in issues of war has no chance of working (ea).
It won't work, even in the unlikely event that a president would sign this bill, or Congress overrode a veto. Presidents won't consult; they'll inform, as they always have..... The War Powers Resolution, which this new bill is to supplant, didn't fail because it was unconstitutional. It failed because, over the years, the president has obtained the power to make war. That won't change until the public decides that it won't allow one person to have this power. Only a disaster would cause the public to make such a decision. Is Iraq such a disaster? No; Congress authorized that war, so even if the War Powers Consultation Act had been on the books when that war began, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference.
