<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>CitizenSugar --  Breaking News, Together.</title>
 <link>http://www.citizensugar.com/</link>
 <description>Breaking News, Together.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Give War Powers Back by Asking For Congress&#039;s Opinion?</title>
 <link>http://www.citizensugar.com/1766878</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;inline left&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/19/193328/28_2008/2641965.preview.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; title=&quot;&quot; class=&quot;image right preview&quot; height=&quot;350&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;Adopting some wisdom from America&#039;s founding fathers, a bipartisan panel of former US officials concluded that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08baker.html?ref=opinion&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;president should consult Congress&lt;/a&gt; before going to war. Congress last officially declared war, as called for in Article I of the Constitution, during World War II. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The National War Powers Commission, led by former secretaries of states James Baker III and Warren Christopher, &lt;a href=&quot;http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080708/D91PQJO02.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;proposed a law to require a congressional vote&lt;/a&gt; of approval or disapproval before the US engages in significant armed conflict for more than a week, except in cases of emergencies. The proposal pushes for cooperation and dialogue between the White House and Congress and imagines a Senate-House group that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/washington/09powers.html?partner=rssnyt&amp;amp;emc=rss&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;would assess the president&#039;s justification for war&lt;/a&gt; along with sensitive intelligence. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commission says it doesn&#039;t want to solve constitutional complexities; the Constitution holds that Congress declares war and controls funding, while the president is commander-in-chief. But the new law could reaffirm the notion that Congress is the president&#039;s war consultant, and not the other way around. Do you think this proposed revamping of war powers goes too far in tying the hands of the president? Or should Congress&#039;s unique ability to declare war be completely reasserted? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gettyimages.com&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.citizensugar.com/1766878#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.citizensugar.com/tags/Iraq">Iraq</category>
 <category domain="http://www.citizensugar.com/tags/James Baker III">James Baker III</category>
 <category domain="http://www.citizensugar.com/tags/National War Powers Commission">National War Powers Commission</category>
 <category domain="http://www.citizensugar.com/tags/War Powers">War Powers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.citizensugar.com/tags/Warren Christopher">Warren Christopher</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:30:00 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>LibertySugar</dc:creator>
 <guid>http://www.citizensugar.com/1766878</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
