Conference Background

This engaging event will bring together activists and academics, public officials and veterans, lawyers and military families. We will use facilitated discussions, panel presentations, and workshops to accomplish two goals. First, to educate ourselves and each other about the issues involved, the state of the law, and alternatives. Second, to develop a statement of common principles leading to a more democratic, comprehensive, and durable national defense policy — one that will honor the Constitution and help keep the United States from entering into unnecessary wars.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have revived and deepened longstanding questions about how and by whom war and peace should be decided under our Constitution and in faith with our democratic aspirations . . .

How can our democracy set in place consistent and durable criteria for considering when or if to use military force, within a broad range of scenarios that might—or might not—challenge national security or threaten world peace?

• Are our political institutions sufficiently robust to maintain and apply “consistent and durable” criteria in the face of the unforeseeable circumstances that typically precede the consideration of using military force?

What is the proper composition, structure, and role of military forces in a modern democracy? Do the U.S. Armed Forces, as currently organized, best serve democracy? How should we respond to the increased reliance of the United States on Private Military Companies?

• When state National Guard units are called into federal military service, should states have a clear and defined role in evaluating whether that call up is proper and in accordance with the law?
• What is the proper balance of forces between the Guard and rest of the Armed Forces? Does the concept of the all-volunteer army need to be revisited, and if so, what are the options for the future?

How should the decision about going to war be made, serving national security and honoring the constitutional system of checks and balances?

• Has the War Powers Act served its intended purposes, and how should it be updated or replaced?
• What should be the role of Congress in authorizing the use of military force, within a broad range of scenarios that might—or might not—challenge national security or threaten world peace? If the United States commences the use of military force, is there a role for Congress beyond its initial authorization of force and later appropriations in support of the military action? May an authorization for use of military force be conditional, and if so, should the conditions be enforceable? What mode of enforcement should be available?
• Should the scope of the President’s Article 2 powers as commander-in-chief be more clearly defined, and if so, how can that clarity be achieved, given that every war is unique and the role of the commander-in-chief hard to define in advance?

Courts have generally declined to hear cases raising war powers issues on grounds that such cases raise “political questions,” which it is ill-equipped to deal with and which, in any event, should fall to the other branches of government. Should the “political question” doctrine be re-examined, and if so, in what circumstances?

• What can we learn from the history of the 1930s-era campaign for a War Referendum Amendment, together with the 1970s-era People Power Over War Amendment, both of which would have established a deliberative national referendum process on war?
• How can the United States promote respect for international treaties and conventions relating to the maintenance of peace and the conduct of war, and what can be done to assure compliance by the United States with such treaties and conventions?

What is the role of the citizen and citizen groups and organizations in helping to frame defense policy, and how can that role be made more effective and relevant?

Please join us October 2nd and 3rd in Washington D.C. as we address and act on these questions.

===== INTERESTED IN FURTHER READING? =====

We recommend the following publications and talks, as provided by the campaign to Bring the Guard Home! It's the Law.

•     NICHOLS: You are the Commander in Chief -- Video of John Nichols' speech at the April 2, 2009, teach-in, "You are the Commander in Chief." This event was one of a series of five events launching Wisconsin"s National Guard campaign.
•     SCOTCH & BLACK: Restoring the Rule of Law Where it Matters Most -- Benson Scotch appeared at the University of Wisconsin Law School on April 2, 2009, together with special guest State Representative Spencer Black, lead sponsor of WI National Guard federalization review legislation.
•     CCR: Restore. Protect. Expand The Constitution: Amend the War Powers Resolution -- A discussion of the need to restore the Congressional role in declaring war by amending the War Powers Act.
•     Democratizing Defense: A Discussion from the Liberty Tree Journal -- From Volume 2, Issue 3, of the Liberty Tree Journal, "Democracy against Empire."
•     MANSKI: From liberty to empire -- The demise of American defense -- A history and legal analysis of the transformation of the National Guard.
•     MARYLAND ASSEMBLY: Testimony on National Guard -- Jean Athey, Peace Action, Steering Committee of Bring the Guard Home! It's the Law, and several other people provided testimony.
•     VIDEO: National Launch of Guard Home! campaign -- Short video of the national launch of the campaign to "Bring the Guard Home! It's the Law." Featured presenters included Rep. Mike Fisher (VT), Rep. David Segal (RI), Jean Athey (Peace Action), Leah Bolger (Vets for Peace), Karen Dolan (IPS), Ben Manski (Liberty Tree), Benson Scotch (Of Counsel).