With regard to issues of war and peace, Congress needs something new.
According to civics books, presidents need declarations of war before engaging in acts of war against nations such as Iraq that have not attacked America.Thus, during a dispute with Spain about the Florida border, President Jefferson told Congress:
"Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force in any degree which could be avoided."
But Congress has virtually dropped out of any role in approving or disapproving such acts of war as bombing Libya, attacking Grenada, invading Panama or blockading Iraq.
American strategy even assumes that a president could turn conventional fighting in Europe into nuclear war without consulting Congress.
Typically, the president consults Congress, if at all, through individual members. Later, at the White House, some leaders are told that the planes are in the air or will be shortly.
In effect, they are asked if anyone has the temerity to express doubt or opposition. Members of Congress, being politicians, approve or duck.
There is a better method.
What if each house of Congress had earlier formed a "Leadership Committee for National Emergencies?"
What if the leadership had seen the conflict emerging - as is almost inevitable? Would they not be well positioned to consider options?
Might they not come up with some ideas of their own? And might not their collective opinion be of use to the president?
Neither presidents nor congressional leaders are eager to see this Leadership Committee formed.
Presidents prefer to "divide and conquer" the congressional leadership, and congressional leaders prefer that responsibility for the action not rub off on them, with potentially harmful effects on their careers.
But it would be better for the nation for such Leadership Committees to exist. After all, talking things over in committee is the congressional format.
Instead, this month, as the crisis in Iraq mounted, Congress went into recess. No one was left to discuss fateful steps that could lead to war.
What is proposed here does not touch on the "war powers" of Congress as opposed to those of the executive. What we are talking about is "good housekeeping" by the Congress.
Now, Congress has no mechanism to involve itself in such urgent affairs. It opts out and cops out.
A Leadership Committee of either house could be composed of the majority and minority leader of that house; the chairmen and ranking members of the Foreign Relations, Armed Services and Intelligence committees; and the house speaker or senate president pro-tempore.
Each house could simply designate such a group; no law is required.
Obviously, Congress could try to do more than this to maintain its constitutional powers in the war-making area.
The question posed here is: Can it, in good conscience, do less?