The Easter proselytizing under DOD and DHS social accounts pushed me over the edge on Sunday, and I had myself a little Facebook rant about our Iran war. A theologically learned friend of mine dropped into the comments to support and lament, including calling out the Nazi-fluffing nature of America’s largely untreatable rash known as Christian Nationalism.

What the world needs now is love, sweet love — but it also needs people who won’t sugarcoat the nature of the problem. So that was most welcome. Since I don’t have a song about Nazi-adjacent pastors, let’s all take a quick Bacharach (and David) Break.

Then my friend tacked on one other thought:

“We really need to take a look at the need for checks on presidential power to start wars. One crazy person should not have been able to do this, enablers or not.”

He’s exactly right. Except, as we all know, the president has no Constitutional power to start a war. Thus ever since World War II, presidents have leaned into coy word games and terms like “military operation” to start their wars.

The blood runs the same, the weapons cost just as much, but just one person gets to unleash all those risks and costs. Not what the Founders wanted, for good reason.

What would a real fix look like?

Raise The Cost Of Word Games
Congress could apply assorted pressure in such instances. But as we’ve seen, you can’t count on that when POTUS-friendly majorities are happy to forget their authority in the matter. Malignant neglect: where would modern GOP governance be without it?

Therefore, we need a deterrent that threatens to kick in to give a war-weaseling POTUS and his no-account enablers second thoughts, and if necessary, some real pain. In broad strokes, it could look something like this.

War-weaseling would release a significant initial sum of money to the opposition party’s Congressional leadership. Highest ranking opposition members from the two chambers would determine which areas would benefit from these funds, starting with the next fiscal year.

No new programs or agencies could be created. Funding levels for existing programs would simply be boosted as desired and would remain for, say, four years. These allocations would not be subject to further review.

Perhaps there would be an option for opposition leaders to choose trimming budgets instead of bolstering line items. That seems more problematic, but it seems fair enough if caps on cuts were in place. Extending existing but temporary tax cuts might be another option.

More Quagmire, More Cost
That first sum covers the launch of military activity. For every 30 days that go by without either a cessation of activity or a declaration of war, additional layers of weasel penalty would release.

If POTUS asks Congress for a supplemental to pay for the war, of if funding were included in the regular budget process, the said weasel percentage would be tacked onto that spending automatically.

Yes, Congress would have to first define the level of military activity that qualifies for the initial weasel penalty to kick in. And yes, there are plenty of details to hammer out, including the percentages/amounts. They have to sting.

Or What?
Look, all POTUS has to do here is formally ask Congress to vote to declare war before things kick off. If Congress votes and blocks, or if Congress then refuses the request to hold a vote, the weasel penalty is off the table.

Imagine a POTUS and his Congressional supporters knowing that instigating war without declaring war would shovel money toward the other party’s pet funding priorities (or even reduce funding for some of their own).

Managing these decisions the right way vs. pushing America in the “wrong” direction in terms of funding priorities. Following the Constitution versus infuriating your base and undercutting your own legislative agenda. Let’s make the choice easy.

This concept would also eliminate the dynamic of “Oh, we can’t afford to do this or that anymore because the president took us to war — I mean, uh, to military conflict.”

Ultimately, the weasel penalty would show more respect to those who would be sent off on our behalf, and it would let us see who really cares about that.