(I asked Prof. Larry Sabato to discuss his new book in depth on the site, which he started last week with this intro piece, and will continue doing over the coming weeks. Again, let me point out up front that no money has exchanged any hands to make this happen -- kos)
----------------------
I will read all comments, gratefully—as I did last week, and I appreciate the feedback. As I have stressed over and over again, A More Perfect Constitution is not the end of the argument, it's the beginning. Any Constitutional changes must be considered in the most careful and deliberative manner, and most amendments--and certainly a Constitutional Convention--might well be a generation away. (A war powers amendment, discussed below, ought to be one of the exceptions; it is an urgent matter.) It would be wonderful if those of you with comments and further ideas for change could register them at www.amoreperfectconstitution.com. Add your '24th Proposal' to my 23. Actually, you can add another 23 if you wish! Thanks to Markos for the forum and sincere thanks to all participants. --Larry Sabato
----------------------
Going back to some concerns raised last week, I want to stress that I am advocating the calling of a second Constitutional Convention only after the idea is given much study, thought, discussion, and debate, such as we are seeing on this website. The process will be generational; that is, there couldn't possibly be a new Convention for a generation. The prism through which some are interpreting the proposal—the current Bush administration—will be very old news indeed. In the meantime, certainly, a more urgent proposal such as the one discussed below on restoring the balance in war powers could be passed under the normal constitutional amendment procedure of Article V, should that prove possible. (If it doesn't prove possible, this is more justification for a second Convention.)
Virtually all of the delegates to the original Convention expected and welcomed future conventions to reconsider their work. As George Mason of Virginia put it in September 1787, "A second Constitutional Convention will know more of the sense of the people, and be able to provide a system more consonant to it." After 220 years of experience, I believe Mason, and the other Founders and Framers, would have insisted on a new debate about constitutional reform.
This week, I’ll focus on a rebalancing of war powers between the Congress and the President. Both the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts have illustrated a modern imbalance in the constitutional power to wage war. Once Congress consented to these wars, presidents were able to continue them for many years— long after popular support had drastically declined. Limit the president’s war-making authority by creating a provision that requires Congress to vote affirmatively every six months to continue American military involvement. Debate in both houses would be limited so that the vote could not be delayed. If either house of Congress voted to end a war, the president would have no more than one year to withdraw all combat troops.
Citing the need for speed and secrecy, presidents of both parties (Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton) have taken “emergency actions” as they saw fit. The natural tendency in a frightening era, when the nation is under threat, is to defer to a tough-talking president who can take swift action—even if the action is unwise or poorly thought out. And yet, as the war-powers scholar Louis Fisher has argued, “The Framers also lived in a dangerous time, possibly more hazardous than today,” as they faced the superpowers of their era (England, France, and Spain) with few military advantages. “Contemporary Presidential judgments need more, not less, scrutiny,” wrote Fisher, and Iraq surely proves the point. While the press can supply some of that scrutiny, there is no substitute for Congress. Its powers of the purse, subpoena, and Article II’s Senate approval of ambassadors and treaties entitle it to a full share of authority in this most important sphere.
Most important of all, there should be a time limit on unilateral presidential war making—ninety days appears reasonable—at which time Congress would need to either give its assent or, through a resolution of disapproval, cause the orderly withdrawal of American forces. Given that Congress, especially the Senate with its unlimited debate rule, can be dilatory, this new constitutional provision should mandate a congressional vote on military action in both houses, up or down, by the end of the ninety-day period.
The legislative resolution of approval ought also to set a time limit on the grant of war-making power for any conflict—six months, or a year at most. By the end of that time period, Congress should vote either for a continuation of the conflict, or by its disapproval, direct that our military forces be withdrawn on a reasonable timetable. Such a resolution would not be subject to the presidential veto. This resolves the problem of congressional approval, once given, being interpreted by presidents as an endless blank check for years of war—precisely what Lyndon Johnson did after the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution with respect to Vietnam, and George W. Bush did after the 2002 congressional vote on the Iraq War. New information comes to light, and new conditions develop—and Congress should regularly review the situation, checking the president in this life-or-death realm of constitutional power.
The era of open-ended, unilateral war making by presidents should be brought to an end, and it will not happen without a remedy such as the one discussed here. If this be “hamstringing a president,” as critics might charge, it is time to use a little string—and the Vietnam and Iraq wars show why. Should combat be in the American national interest, it ought to find favor in both elective branches, not just one, for we will surely fail to win the battle eventually if the nation is not substantially behind the war effort. All Americans understand that this is not an arcane debate about a few phrases in the Constitution. The most awesome authority contained in the text of our basic document of state is the war-making power. How it is described and allocated determines the fate of millions of our sons and daughters—those who wear the American military uniform. Just as vital, America’s decisions to wage war affect our ability to survive and succeed in a dangerous world. It is long past time to rethink the inadequate constitutional arrangement that was well suited to the eighteenth century but is out of step in the twenty-first.
Comments are closed on this story.