Jim Baker and Warren Christopher go to bat for the rule of law

Never thought I would say it, but two illustrious and respected eminences grises of the foreign policy establishment -- Bush-pere's Republican Secretary of State Jim Baker III and Clinton's Democratic Secretary of State Warren Christopher -- just made a proposal that is so.... well... pre-9/11.

Baker and Christopher believe there's a need to pass the "War Powers Consultation Act of 2009" which "would, except for emergencies, require the president and Congressional leaders to discuss the matter before going to war." Let me repeat: this law would introduce the novelty of requiring the President to consult Congress before going to war. Oh wait, never mind, we already have the 1973 War Powers Resolution (passed by Congress in response to the Vietnam War, requiring -- you guessed it -- the President to consult with Congress before going to war). Baker and Christopher acknowledge this but add that the real problem is that the President does not recognize the validity of this resolution and that we are therefore in "a situation that undermines the rule of law, the centerpiece of American democracy."

It is beyond me why Baker and Christopher believe that future Presidents would adhere to this new War Powers Consultation Act of 2009 when they previously decided to ignore the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Indeed, it is beyond me why they believe that any President after this administration would take the trouble of complying with any inconvenient law. At a minimum, the President can attach a secret signing statement gutting the law (see here, explaining that in his signing statements "George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to 'supervise the unitary executive branch.'") (emphasis added.) Moreover, the President can simply break the inconvenient law because there are unlikely to be any serious consequences to doing so anyway.

Put differently, who will make the President adhere to that "centerpiece of American democracy" called the rule of law if he or she does not do so voluntarily? Not the Courts. And apparently not Congress either.