North Carolina Rep. Jones introduces bill to limit president's war powers

North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones is often a good foot soldier for the GOP and conservative elements within the Party. However, on occasion, Jones will buck the desires of the powers that be to do what he thinks is right, much like Virginia's Senator John Warner. Would that there were more such members of the GOP. This article from the New Bern, North Carolina Sun Journal (http://www.newbernsj.com/news/bill_37205___article.html/war_jones.html) describes one such situation where Jones is doing what's right a head os the Party and/or the Chimperator's wishes. I am certain that Emperor Palpatine Cheney will NOT like the bill. Here are some highlights:

WASHINGTON — Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina has introduced a bill to prevent the use of U.S. military force in war without the consent of Congress. The bipartisan legislation would amend the United States War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was passed in response to the extended Vietnam War. Jones submitted the bill Sept. 25 and announced it Thursday at a press conference with three of five co-sponsors. One of them, Rep. Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, a Democrat, is a member of the House subcommittee on foreign affairs which will first hear the bill. Also present were Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, both Republicans. The other co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii and and Rep. Robert Brady of Pennsylvania, both Democrats.

The bill would prevent U.S. involvement in another long war without congressional approval. But Jones said it was not drafted in response to last week’s “World War III” comment by President George Bush or to new numbers released this week by the Congressional Budget Office putting the cost of the Iraq War through 2008 at $610 billion and predicting a cost through 2017 of as much as $2.4 trillion. “This has nothing to do with Iraq,” said Jones, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee and was one of the first Republican congressmen to oppose the war in Iraq. “This has to do with the Constitution and it has to do with the future,” said Jones. “From what I have seen Congress has not met its constitutional duty regarding oversight.” Jones said he is also concerned about the long deployments of overtaxed military forces and families.

Jones said the framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to decentralize U.S. war powers with those checks. “Throughout American history, this balance too often has been ignored,” he said. “Since U.S. involvement in Korea, presidents of both parties have used military force abroad without the consent of Congress.” The bill specifically prohibits presidential entry into future hostilities without congressional action except to repel and retaliate for an attack on the U.S. or U.S. troops, or to protect and evacuate U.S. citizens. It would strengthen requirements for presidential reporting to Congress to keep members better informed, improve congressional oversight, and tie the purse strings of operations initiated without compliance.

Virginia Sloan, president of The Constitution Project, a nonpartisan organization focused on solving constitutional issues, said it would be “a significant step toward restoring the checks and balances established in the Constitution.”