It’s appropriate that a blue-ribbon commission would recommend repealing the War Powers Act less than a week after America’s Independence Day.

Since the dawn of the republic, presidents have battled with Congress over which branch has the constitutional right to send American troops into battle, and neither side has been fully satisfied with the muddled results. The Iraq war is merely the most recent example sparking constitutional questions.

The new proposal from an expert panel that includes former Secretaries of State James Baker and Warren Christopher would replace the War Powers Act with a new law requiring the president to consult Congress before launching military action that is expected to last at least a week.

It also requires Congress to consider a resolution approving the action, and would give it the option of considering a resolution disapproving of war.

These features sound good on paper. After all, who could be against more consultation between the branches of government?

But in reality, they would change almost nothing. The ability to launch and continue wars will stay firmly linked to a president’s political power, unless the Constitution is dramatically rewritten. The value of the consultations, touted by the commission, would be determined by the administration, which might not be interested in listening to opinions from the opposite party in Congress.

The report itself acknowledges that if Congress passed a disapproval resolution, the president could veto it.

In the unlikely event that Congress then overrode that veto, the result would not bind the president, and Congress would be left to pull back funding for war.

As a result, it’s hard to imagine there would have been a different result if the new proposal had been law when the Iraq war was launched.

Congress in October 2002 authorized the president to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions and “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”

At the time, the United States was just more than a year removed from the Sept. 11 attacks, and President Bush’s approval ratings stood above 60 percent. With that level of power, Bush could count on support from Republicans in Congress. Democrats in the Senate, worried about their reelection or thinking about future runs for the presidency, had little interest in standing in his way.

The same result today would be unthinkable, given the fact that the president’s popularity has fallen to historic lows. Democrats would not cower from challenging him, and Republicans would have little interest in backing him up.

The resolution also wouldn’t make it any easier for Congress to end an unpopular war. In the end, the only binding action Congress could take, according to the commission’s report, would be to cut off funds.

Congress has that ability now, but has been unable to win the necessary votes.

The ambiguity of war powers is contained in the Constitution, which makes the president commander in chief but gives Congress the power of the purse and ability to declare war.

No law can overcome this. A constitutional amendment or definite Supreme Court decision could, but the odds of either happening in this lifetime seem just about as unlikely as America returning to the British crown.