“The Congress shall have power
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”
Interesting that Gordon Brown is effectively borrowing an American idea with these proposals and yet so many people here think it will be a disastrous move. Are you all similarly opposed to the above clauses in your own Constitution?
I think some us are questioning the wisdom of such a “borrowing”(as you put it) in a time of unprecedented terror threat when a strong hand may be needed. The war making powers enumerated in our constitution have been an organic part of our government since its birth and we have a better sense of the check and balances governing our selves.
To suddenly thrust that kind of power onto a legislative body (Lords and Commons) which is not known for nimble response to complex social issues, is to invite socio-political paralysis at a time when flexible police/military responses may be needed.
But the President is not selected by Congress, as the PM is selected by the majority in Parliament. Parliament already had a giant "Check" on the powers of the PM, they can remove him from office by a "no confidence" vote.
WHile Congress can remove the President, it cannot do so simpily because they don't like his polices. The situations are not comparable.
Also at the time the US Constitution was written, the King, and not the PM had the power to declare war. We didn't like Kings and were not about to make the President an elected King. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, as was the King of England at the time.