By Maggie Thurber | Special to Ohio Watchdog

Maggie Thurber

I agree completely with Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich – only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war.

I also agree with Kucinich that recent military actions approved by the United Nation’s Security Council, such as the involvement of troops in Libya, are “not a substitute for a Congressional declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force and it is in clear subversion of the Constitution.”

But I don’t know what a new piece of legislation is going to do to stop this violation.

Kucinich introduced H.R. 6290, which would “prohibit the deployment of a unit or individual of the U.S. Armed Forces or an element of the intelligence community in support of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization military operation absent express prior statutory authorization from Congress for such deployment.”

The bill already has three Republican co-sponsors: Rep. Walter Jones, Jr., NC-District 3; Rep. Reid Ribble, WI-District 8; and Rep. Don Young, AK. It has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select).

“Congress must re-establish itself as a coequal branch of government and ensure that the U.S. is not committed to another NATO mission absent prior congressional statutory authorization,” Kucinich said. “The Constitution is clear: Article 1, Section 8 provides only Congress with the ability to declare war or authorize the use of military force. Congress cannot stand by idly as the Constitution is circumvented.”

This isn’t the first time Kucinich has endeavored to enforce Congress’s authority. As U.S. News & World Report wrote of the Libya controversy in 2010:

“Obama advisers shrugged off press suggestions that congressional authorization was needed, insisting the operation would take ‘days, not months.’ This was a reference to the War Powers Act’s provision requiring the president to seek such authorization should military action extend beyond 60 days. Congress, then out on one of its all-too-frequent ‘breaks,’ made no effort to assert its institutional duties, let alone its legislative prerogatives. House Speaker John Boehner released a nondescript statement urging the president to make public his reasons for authorizing the action. It suggested no date and offered no hint of what Congress might do should its advice be ignored.

“As the 60-day deadline came and went, a growing bipartisan coalition in Congress began wondering aloud what Obama had wrought, and by himself. After threatening to introduce articles of impeachment against President Obama for ordering military action without congressional authorization, Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced a measure to block U.S. participation in the NATO-led operation within 15 days of its passage, absent congressional authorization. The measure, though defeated, attracted the votes of 87 Republicans and 61 Democrats. To fend off this more draconian action, Boehner introduced a resolution condemning the president for not seeking congressional approval and urging him to do so, absent the ‘or else’ provision.”

Kucinich wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to hold the president in violation of the War Powers Act but, like his measure to block U.S. action in Libya, that went nowhere.

In 2011, Congress failed to pass a measure to cut off funding for Libyan actions until after Congress granted authorization for them.   Congress had a similar issue in 1999 when military action in Kosovo proceeded without being authorized. Despite their ability to halt the actions, Congress failed to act.

If a president has no regard for the constitutional constraints, will Kucinich’s bill, even if passed by Congress, make a difference?

Would a president actually sign it into law?

With this history of inaction by Congress, does H.R. 6290 have a chance?