The last time former Secretaries of State James A. Baker III and Warren Christopher appeared together was on HBO’s “Recount,” a retelling of the Bush-Gore battle for those hanging, indented and pregnant chads that might have solved the mystery of who legitimately won the presidency in 2000.

The entertaining, albeit fictionalized, account of how George W. Bush became president pits an overcautious, wimpish Christopher against the street-fighting, brass-knuckled, no-nonsense Baker, who apparently got a much better shake from the scriptwriters because of that middle initial and the III at the end of his name.

Seemingly none the worse for wear, however, and content to allow history to sort out chadian fact from fiction, Baker and Christopher appeared together again on Capitol Hill Tuesday in the non-fictionalized Cannon Caucus Room so they could formally report the findings from their yearlong study of the 1973 War Powers Act.

Although the full report can be found here, a brief smattering of reviews for the original “War Powers — The Movie” would surely include: Ill-conceived; Unconstitutional; Misunderstood; Ignored; Ambiguous; Ineffective; Bad Law; Useless.

In a joint editorial in The New York Times, Baker and Christopher write: “Our Constitution ambiguously divides war powers between the president (who is the commander in chief) and Congress (which has the power of the purse and the power to declare war).”

They go on to suggest, and reiterated at the news conference, that the Founding Fathers anticipated (silly gooses that they were) that the executive and legislative branches would actually consult one another on somewhat important matters like, say, taking the nation to war.

The 12-member National War Powers Commission, which also includes former House Foreign Affairs panel Chairman Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) and former Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), among others, unanimously concluded that the entire 1973 law, which has never been invoked, should be scrapped and replaced with another that provides a more formalized consultative role for the Congress.

The new legislation would also give the Congress a voting role for combat missions longer than seven days.

Although it would not allow Congress to reverse what a president had commenced, lawmakers could cut off funding, which is an existing congressional option with no constitutional ambiguity, for which no commissions are needed.

The War Powers Commission’s website offers a brief summary of the proposed law:

• Provides that the president shall consult with Congress before deploying U.S. troops into significant armed conflict — i.e., combat operations lasting, or expected to last, more than a week.
• Defines the types of hostilities that would or would not be considered significant armed conflicts.
• Creates a new Joint Congressional Consultation Committee, which includes leaders of both houses as well as the chairmen and ranking members of key committees.
• Establishes a permanent bipartisan staff with access to the national security and intelligence information necessary to conduct its work.
• Calls on Congress to vote up or down on significant armed conflicts within 30 days.

I am a bit torn about this report. It seems to be some fine work by people who care about their country, but ultimately the commissioners spent over a year deciding that the president and the Congress should be doing a better job talking to one another. Beyond that, serious ambiguities remain.

Suppose, for instance, that, after 30 days of a combat mission, Congress decided to vote yea or nay. If the vote went against the president, Congress would need to proceed to a vote of disapproval of the mission.

Assuming that vote passed, it would then go to the president, who would presumably veto it. Then Congress could kick into the normal veto-override vote sequence.

Theorizing that the override vote was successful, and the president’s heels were dug in on the mission, then it’s on to the legendary constitutional showdown across the street at the Supreme Court.

The Commission should be commended for its work, but it steers clear of trying to solve the huge constitutional question, opting instead to set in motion a duplicative, multilayered process that could delay confrontations until the executive and legislative branches reach agreement.

But, let’s be clear; Congress already has the constitutional authority to declare war and pull the plug on funding for foreign engagements of which it disapproves. All ambiguities that exist could easily be clarified if Congress ever wanted to force the issue and wasn’t in the abdication business.

The truth is, Congress, deep down, is perfectly happy with the ambiguity. A few well-timed commissions here and there offer an acceptable, and useful, illusion.

You can reach Jim Mills at This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it