SB 2018-166: War Powers Amendment (Passed)

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article IV, Section 2.1 of the Constitution shall be amended to read the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Senator Lumine.

[Lumine]

Right, one of my pledges over the past few months (and indeed, something that goes back to 2014) is a committment to end the constant ambiguity that exists in Constitutional and legal terms regarding war powers, something which I find to be one of the outdated relics coming from the US Constitutional framework which we might as well reform to avoid further trouble. Events like the botched strike on North Korea have shown us that we need a clearer process less prone to abuse, and this Amendment (which will require extra legislation if enacted by the regions) is a step in that direction.

I started from the base that the President is the Commander-in-Chief and Congress has the power to declare war, and decided to complement both with two important changes to our constitution.

The first change is adding a whole new area that handles "War Authorization" when it comes to the powers of Congress. Basically, it acknowledges two different types of warfare and two different mechanisms to legislate: There's warfare against a sovereign nation which we recognize, which would necessarily require a formal Declaration of War, and there's warfare against a terrorist or rebel group, for example, ISIS or Boko Haram (which for obvious reasons we would never recognize as a sovereign state), which would require an Authorization of Force. That is to say, Congress retains the overall constitutional superiority in the long term and over anything that is far-reaching.

These Declarations or Authorization may also include a time limit that Congress may choose to extend or not as a war goes forward, increasing the actual oversight of Congress when it comes to ending operations or allowing them to continue. Should they be ended (this is assumed to be a scenario where Congress chooses to end participation in a conflict) or expired, a period of 30 days would follow for withdrawal. I considered a period of 90 days first (and I would prefer that), but 90 days are certainly a lot of time for Atlasia, and it's important to bear that in mind as well.

The second change pertains the Presidential powers, which perhaps need to be reigned in a bit. Mind you, I support a strong Executive, but not an executive which can blatantly abuse its powersto terrible effect. Under this amendment, a President would retain the power to react to emergencies (which can and will ocurr, gentlemen, let's be realistic about it). However, he will have to act within a framework set by Congress via legislation (that is to say, after this is ratified Congress will have to pass a bit outlining what is a foreign policy emergency and what isn't), he will be constrained with a 90 day limit (which is too narrow to wage full-scale long term war, but sufficient to handle a short-term threat), and he will require the signatures of two members of his Cabinet.

Therefore, defense and military policy can be conducted in a more orderly fashion and with a clearer Constitutional framework, and while a President would retain the initiative to react to an emergency, he be would be reigned in not only by legislation, but by the need to recieve some support from his Cabinet, meaning decisions are more likely to have a collective basis and not just the impulse of a single man.

Thoughts?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is similar to the legislation I campaigned on and then discussed with Oakvale late last year, the idea of requiring some level of formal engagement from the cabinet as a reaction to the alleged manner in which the Korean fiasco transpired. It was my hope to proceed with legislation on this in December, but my intense holiday work schedule and then my Mom's illness, rapid decline and yea, things got complicated.


But I do plan to support this when it comes to the house side.

[_]

I very much approve of this Bill, in order to avoid another Fiasco like the one with a certain previous President.  I will vote in favor of this Bill when it comes to the floor.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is similar to the legislation I campaigned on and then discussed with Oakvale late last year, the idea of requiring some level of formal engagement from the cabinet as a reaction to the alleged manner in which the Korean fiasco transpired. It was my hope to proceed with legislation on this in December, but my intense holiday work schedule and then my Mom's illness, rapid decline and yea, things got complicated.


But I do plan to support this when it comes to the house side.

My one concern with this, is that it doesnt actually prevent another Korea fiasco. The bombing of N. Korea was a one time thing clearly within the 90 day window. The current president sought approval for a war declaration prior to involving us further, but given that the 2nd Korean War lasted less than 90 days, this change doesnt do much to stop military conflict, and capping withdrawal at 30 days regardless of circumstances seems unwieldy abd could jeopardize the safety or effectiveness if a withdrawal.

[Lumine]

This is similar to the legislation I campaigned on and then discussed with Oakvale late last year, the idea of requiring some level of formal engagement from the cabinet as a reaction to the alleged manner in which the Korean fiasco transpired. It was my hope to proceed with legislation on this in December, but my intense holiday work schedule and then my Mom's illness, rapid decline and yea, things got complicated.


But I do plan to support this when it comes to the house side.

My one concern with this, is that it doesnt actually prevent another Korea fiasco. The bombing of N. Korea was a one time thing clearly within the 90 day window. The current president sought approval for a war declaration prior to involving us further, but given that the 2nd Korean War lasted less than 90 days, this change doesnt do much to stop military conflict, and capping withdrawal at 30 days regardless of circumstances seems unwieldy abd could jeopardize the safety or effectiveness if a withdrawal.

Emphasis on "with the required support and signature of at least two principal officers of the executive departments, and only in the case of emergencies previously determined by Congress via appropiate legislation." Meaning not only Congress will establish limits as to what is an emergency, but that a President will require support from some members of his cabinet before acting. What I've heard so far is that Goldwater's strike was apparently a unilateral, personal decision (being allegded that many knew nothing of it), so it seems to me requiring this support before action can be taken is a good step towards preventing another fiasco.

As to withdrawal, I'm all for a longer process and I would very much like to extend, I'm just trying to be cautious in gauging which limit could Congress support.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Meaning not only Congress will establish limits as to what is an emergency, but that a President will require support from some members of his cabinet before acting.

#triggered.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's fine. Would you be willing to consider 30 days unless the president submits a plan with an alternative schedule including a date for complete withdrawal with some evidence justifying the extension, subject to a 2/3 congressional veto?

That way, the President would still have to provide a definite date and reasoning and congress could react if they thought it was too long, while still giving some flexibility based on the individualized conditions?

Like IRL I dont think we should be in afghanistan any more, but I dont think its feasible to pull everyone and our equipment out in 30 days.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I definitely support this bill as it aims to protect the country and the world from another rash unilateral action so that another Korea type fiasco will never happen again. I would be open to supporting an amendment extending the 30 day withdrawal deadline to somewhere between 60 and 90 days if it's necessary to do so.

[Pericles]

I definitely support this bill as it aims to protect the country and the world from another rash unilateral action so that another Korea type fiasco will never happen again. I would be open to supporting an amendment extending the 30 day withdrawal deadline to somewhere between 60 and 90 days if it's necessary to do so.

Same.

[Lumine]

Glad to hear there's support for a different withdrawal process, I'll offer the following amendment (24 hours for objections):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article IV, Section 2.1 of the Constitution shall be amended to read the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Lumine]

So sorry for the delay here, amendment is adopted. Are there other concerns with this Amendment I may have missed?

[Lumine]

Right, a week having passed I motion for a final vote. 24 hours for objections.

[Lumine]

With no objections, we move to a final vote. Senators, please vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article IV, Section 2.1 of the Constitution shall be amended to read the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[_]

Aye!

[Lumine]

Aye!

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Aye!

[Pericles]

Aye!

[Lumine]

This has enough votes to pass, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Lumine]

With 4 votes in favor this Amendment passes the Atlasian Senate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article IV, Section 2.1 of the Constitution shall be amended to read the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

People's Regional Senate:
Passed 4-0-1 in the Atlasian Senate assembled

[/quote]