James Baker and Warren Christopher penned a piece in the NYTimes that is troubling but seems to have been greeted by the mainstream media as words of wisdom.

James Baker, of course, is the unethical consigliere of the Bush family, who cleans up after and bails out members of that infamous clan and, as Bush One's Secretary of State, gave a green light to Serbia's illegal and barbaric invasion of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Warren Christopher, Clinton's first Secretary of State, was a weak, ineffectual foreign policy adviser and lacked the requisite leadership for that office.  That lack effective leadership was especially evident regarding Somalia and Christopher's refusal to admit that Serbia committed genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

What they wrote should be viewd critically and taken with a large dose of salt.

Their NYTimes article states: "The most agonizing decision we make as a nation is whether to go to war.. Our Constitution ambiguously divides war powers between the president (who is the commander in chief) and Congress (which has the power of the purse and the power to declare war). The founders hoped that the executive and legislative branches would work together, but in practice the two branches don’t always consult. And even when they do, they often dispute their respective powers.

"A bipartisan group that we led, the National War Powers Commission, has unanimously concluded after a year of study that the law purporting to govern the decision to engage in war — the 1973 War Powers Resolution — should be replaced by a new law that would, except for emergencies, require the president and Congressional leaders to discuss the matter before going to war. Seventy years of polls show that most Americans expect Congress and the president to talk before making that decision, and in most cases, they have done so.

"Congress passed the 1973 resolution in response to the Vietnam War. But it is ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst. No president has recognized its constitutionality, and Congress has never pressed the issue. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on its constitutionality. In fact, courts have largely shied away from refereeing war-powers disputes between the two political branches."

Baker and Christopher's piece is an example of former, ineffective inside the Beltway figures trying to capture the spotlight with superfluous writing grounded in deliberate ignorance of the fact that the Constitution states that it is only Congress, not the president, who has the power to declare war. 

The 1973 War Powers Act, like the current FISA Bill, is unnecessary, terrible legislation created by a Congress disdainful of the Constitution and kowtowing to a president who continues to defy that living document.  A new, revised bill shouldn't even be considered: in fact, the 1973 War Powers Act should be repealed.

As Minnesota First blog (via Cursor. org) explains further why these two former Secretaries of State are blowing hot air: "Christopher and Baker propose a new law to replace the unconstitutional 1973 War Powers Resolution. Their proposal bows to presidential power and ignores the Constitution, providing little improvement over the 1973 resolution.

"Christopher and Baker’s underlying assumption is flawed. This proposal is predicated on the idea that both the President and the Congress have the power to make war.

"... the President does not have the power to start a war or use the military in any way unless specifically authorized by the US Congress with a declaration of war. Every President since Truman has used the military unconstitutionally, but that does not mean that the United States should consider adopting a law that aims to abrogate the Constitution. There is no wiggle room in the Constitution – not for covert ops or even the “emergencies”. The Constitution was made not only for the everyday but for emergencies as well. This may surprise some people in this post-9/11 United States. If matters are that pressing, the President can ask Congress to declare war, otherwise any use of the military is illegal. The idea that Congressional consultation must be mandated by this proposed statute is indicative of the warped view of war powers that now prevails.

"I would be remiss if I blamed this muddled view of war powers solely on the increasing executive power since WWI. It is just as much the fault of the Congress who eagerly embraces the idea that they can get away without going on the record concerning a declaration of war. Their political expediency has cost as many lives as the Presidential “wars”. If this Iraq “war” had actually been declared, the equivocation that we have seen from people like Hillary Clinton about not actually voting to use force would not be possible."

This defiance of the Constitution by this president and his administration with the help of rubber stamping members of Congress has got to stop.