Anti-war activists in Congress flex limited procedural muscles

It is sometimes tempting to read the procedural tea leaves of Congress for some deeper meanings, interpretations or even occasional partisan power ploys.

In reality, most procedures observed in Congress are relatively routine and boilerplate phrases dictated by written rules, precedents and practices of each house. It is those slightly offbeat instances when something seems extraordinary that you dive deeper into what it is they are trying to do, and why. Usually these anomalous usages are initiated by the minority party which otherwise has no control over scheduling or the procedures by which measures are considered.

The issue of congressional and presidential war powers is one over which constitutional scholars and political practitioners have been wrangling since the birth of the Constitution. While it seems simple enough on its face that the Congress has the power to declare war and the president has the power as commander in chief to prosecute a war once the military has been “called into the actual service of the United States,” the Framers left it ambiguous as to the relationship of those two roles, especially after Congress has authorized a standing military.

With the initiation of the U.S. war on Iran on Feb. 28, all of the questions of the legitimacy of the attack came into play once again. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was an attempt to clarify the blurred role of the two branches, especially since the era of declared wars ended with World War II.

As........

© The Hill