Why the collapse of congressional war powers matters

When it comes to war powers, the Constitution has become little more than an irrelevant and archaic piece of paper. There's no sugarcoating it: The system the founders codified in the Constitution for making war in our country’s name is increasingly disregarded by our political leaders.

There’s a stark difference between how war is supposed to be conducted under the Constitution in this country and the status quo we have right now.

The original system included a rigorous regime of checks and balances, where the president was expected to send his representatives to Capitol Hill to make the case for military action. In its infinite wisdom, Congress would hear the case, ask probing questions about the proposed course of action, and engage in a thorough public debate about potential costs, benefits, consequences (intended and unintended), and alternative options.

Only if lawmakers granted the president the statutory authority to use force would the United States be permitted to go forward. This is how the founders drew up the system.

Then, at the opposite extreme, there is the way war is made today.

Take President Trump’s airstrike against Iranian general Qassem Soleimani as the latest example. The president’s defenders argue that a single strike on a terrorist mastermind is not a war-like action, but this isn’t how the Iranians will see it. They undoubtedly view it as an assassination and an act of war.

-more-

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-the-collapse-of-congressional-war-powers-matters/ar-BBYFSs7?ocid=msn360

I'm surprised to see The Washington Examiner carry this.