Senators considering constitutional amendment to limit war powers

[samhsarah]

New York -- As Capitol Hill prepares to battle the White House over George W. Bush's expanding war powers, moderate Senators on both sides of the aisle are quietly considering a range of options that would attempt at the very least to delineate the President's authority, if not roll it back. Bush's claims of wartime license are so great-the White House and Justice Department have argued that the Commander in Chief's pursuit of national security cannot be constrained by any laws passed by Congress, even when he is acting against U.S. citizens-that some Senators are considering a constitutional amendment to limit his powers, Massimo Calabresi and Timothy J. Burger report in MONDAY's TIME. Excerpts:

In the public-opinion battle over domestic eavesdropping, Bush won the first round by arguing that he needed the unchecked power to learn “if there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaeda.” With poll numbers split on the issue, spooked Senators hunkered down. But in recent days, Senate Democrats and the Judiciary Committee's Republican chairman, Arlen Specter, have fired off nine letters to the Justice Department and the White House demanding information on the domestic-spying program. At Senate hearings last week, the former head of the National Security Agency refused even in closed session to say how many phones had been tapped in the U.S. This reticence comes after conflicting public estimates from President Bush (“a few” U.S. phones) and his Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff (“thousands”).

A source familiar with the nascent constitutional amendment says one version would make clear that any actions by the President as Commander in Chief that affect domestic policies or U.S. citizens are subject to the exclusive control of Congress. “Congress can't completely cede wartime power to the President,” the source says. Talk of an amendment could end up as merely a lever in hearings. Then again, the first 10 amendments-better known as the Bill of Rights-were demanded by the states in part to curb the Constitution's broad presidential powers.

FULL STORY NOW AT TIME: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156615,00.html

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senators_considering_constitutional_amendment_to_limit_0205.html

[Crazy Dave]

1. Got to watch out for those "Police Actions" though

Like in Vietnam. Send a couple of thousand troops over somewhere as advisers without needing the approval of Congress, wait for a few American casualties, get the willing media to start the propaganda campaign, soon you've got public support for retaliation and soon after you get congressional approval for more funds and for sending more troops. Public support means they get afraid of not getting re-elected if they disapprove and even more afraid of Rush Limbaugh or FOX News saying bad stuff about them.
The Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and FOX News fear factor. You've got to admit, it does work.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. A constitutional amendment will take to damn long

We already have laws in place that prohibit this nonsense. We need impeachment proceedings not new laws.

Bush broke the law and needs to be charged and removed from power, that is the only solution.

[Hosnon]

5. Well that's where the debate lies. The Congress can't pass laws that

infringe on the President's Constitutionally granted authority. The Bush Admin. says that the wiretapping is allowed under such authority.

Therefore, a Constitutional amendment would cut the legs out from underneath that argument by explicitly removing certain things from the President's granted authority.

I think it is definitely worthwhile...some of the things that the Supreme Court has said regarding executive authority are scary.

[Toots]

3. When the US is truly at war the President should have War Powers but...

This is bullshit what we have going on now. How can we be at war against an idea? Especially one that has been around forever and always will be. There always has been terror and there always will be. Someone needs to reign in the insanity and do it soon...

[justabob]

4. Wouldn't repealing the War Powers Act effectively take

the Executive's power to 'declare war' away? Isn't that the legislation that made pretty much all the 'wars' we have had since WWII possible?

Sorry if that is a stupid question... :shrug:

on edit: My point is that we don't need an ammendment... it is outlined very specifically in the body of the US Constitution who is supposed to be in charge of whether we go to war or not.

[Solon]

7. No not really...

Technically the President can declare a "Military action" against another nation for 90 days, within that time Congress must approve of the action, after the fact, if they don't, then the President must withdraw the troops.

[Doctor_J]

6. By the time such an amendment could pass,

the US will be a smoldering wasteland. I have a better idea - curb THIS loser's war powers by showing him the door (door to Levenworth).

[samhsarah]

8. I like the way you think. nt