Following on my previous comment regarding the need for Americans to choose between Republic and Empire, I want to point out some outstanding work that is being done in obscurity in this area by Rep. Bill Delahunt's subcommittee of the House Foreigns Affairs Committee.

The line-up of witnesses Delahunt called earlier this month in the second of a series of hearings concerning "War Powers for the 21st Century" was superb. Credit also belongs to Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), who has proposed a revision to 1973's War Powers Resolution, based on the minority objections voiced by its original drafters. [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj110-53]

One key witness was Jules Lobel of the University of Pittsburgh Law School and the Center for Constitutional Rights, who was the attorney for both the Dellums case in 1990 and the earlier Campbell case (and author most recently of Less Safe, Less Free: Why America is Losing the War on Terror).

[As an aside, note this clear, Constitution-affirming footnote (#5) from Judge Greene in the (thrown out for lack of 'ripeness') Dellums case: "While the Constitution itself speaks only of the congressional power to declare war, it is silent on the issue of the effect of a congressional vote that war not be initiated. However, if the War Clause is to have its normal meaning, it excludes from the power to declare war all branches other than the Congress. It also follows that if the Congress decides that United States forces should not be employed in foreign hostilities, and if the Executive does not of its own volition abandon participation in such hostilities, action by the courts would appear to be the only available means to break the deadlock in favor of the constitutional provision." http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/m/c/mcw10/Download/Dellums_V_Bush.htm]

Professor Lobel's statement to Delahunt's subcommittee on April 10 is a must read. Here's an excerpt:

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before this Subcommittee on the critical issue of how to ensure that decisions to go to war be made by Congress. The constitutional principle that those decisions not be made by one person is too important to our nation's well being and security to be a partisan issue.

.

Constitutional Framework

The framers vested the power to decide on warfare in Congress for three main reasons. First, they believed that war was, in Madison's words, "among the greatest of national calamities,"3 and therefore wanted to provide what Jefferson termed an "effectual check on the dogs of war."4 ..snip.. Therefore the Constitution provides that only Congress can initiate warfare—whether it be major military conflicts, small skirmishes or little wars—with the sole exception that the President can use force to respond to a sudden attack against us.

..snip.. While the nature and source of the threats to our national security have dramatically changed since the 18th century, the cost of warfare in lives lost, injuries suffered, and national resources expended is even greater today than it was in 1787. - Professor Jules Lobel

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/lob041008.htm

Also not to be missed is the testimony of Professor Michael Glennon, who offers what would be my preferred approach, beyond Jones's proposed fix of the flawed and unworkable War Powers Resolution:

One alternative to the broad approach of the War Powers Resolution would be patterned on section 106 (b) of Senator Biden's bill. That section would cut off funds for a given use of force if Congress were to adopt a concurrent resolution that contains a finding that -

.

(1) a use of force abroad has exceeded the 60-day time period;

(2) the President has acted outside the authority to use force that was conferred by Congress; or

(3) a use of force is otherwise conducted in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.

Once such a concurrent resolution is adopted, a point of order will lie in each House against any measure that contains budget authority to carry out the use of force in question. That will preclude any further consideration of the measure in question until the budget authority is removed.

This is, in my mind, a clean, simple, and effective way for Congress to employ its ultimate check, the power over the purse, to curb unwanted use of force by the President. It is clearly constitutional in that it relies upon the plenary power of each House to set its own rules of procedure. It can be put in place with a concurrent resolution that cannot be vetoed. If Congress is serious about reclaiming the war power, this might be a good place to start. - Professor Michael Glennon, 4/10/08

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/gle041008.htm

The statements of other witnesses (which besides Professors Lobel and Glennon, included Louis Fisher of the Library of Congress, Bruce Fein, and Edwin Williamson) and a webcast of the hearing, are available here:

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sub_oversight.asp

Here's a portion of Chairman Delahunt's opening statement:

My comment then – which I will repeat now – is that this patently absurd interpretation of the 2002 authorization has no basis in fact, and is an affront to the constitutional role of Congress. I recently introduced legislation with Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro that calls for the extension of the U.N. mandate – and requires that any agreement authorizing U.S. forces to fight be approved by Congress.

.

Therefore, this argument about congressional and executive war powers is not academic, but very real. And I would submit that now, more than ever, is the moment in our nation's history to engage on this issue. - Representative Bill Delahunt (D-MA)

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/delahunt041008.htm

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Delahunt. This wise and timely attempt to honestly re-examine and re-assert the long-neglected war powers of Congress needs to be praised and encouraged by us all. This is our Congress acting as our Founders intended - Delahunt, Jones and everyone participating has my profound gratitude.