For those of us who lived through the great debate over war powers in the wake of the Vietnam conflict, the gambit by Secretaries of State Baker and Christopher — a proposed law called the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009 — looks like the worst of both worlds. The law these two worthies seek would establish yet another joint committee in Congress with yet another permanent staff. And a president would have not only to notify but consult with such committee in case of significant military action. The exceptions would include covert action, rescue missions, and actions that last less than a week.

The proposed law also would require the Congress to vote on a resolution to support military action. But that resolution would not be the final arbiter of the president’s war making authority. Only if Congress can muster a two-thirds majority, over-riding a presidential veto, could the legislative branch stop a war the commander in chief began. This new measure is meant to replace the so-called War Powers Act, which has been on the books since 1973. But why not just use the hoary old United States Constitution, which already allows a Congress to stop any presidential act, or any individual presidency itself, with a two-thirds majority.

Long experience in the newspaper racket teaches us that when the purpose of a law is not obvious or logical, there’s a hidden agenda. In this case we are dealing with the old State Department camarilla and others who are frightened that President Bush or one of his successors might try another Iraq. Or an Iran. Or act to defend Israel. Yet even without a War Powers Consultation Act on the books, Iraq was entered with bipartisan support from both houses of Congress. And Congress will get plenty of say about Iran and Israel, also without a War Powers Consultation Act.

It’s hard to think of a single war an American president has entered without consulting the Congress, in most cases formally, via some kind of vote, and in all cases, informally, in conversations with various leaders on the Hill. Even the Mexican War was eventually declared by the Congress, to which the power to declare war was delegated in Article I of the Constitution. Only lawyers of the ilk of Messrs. Baker and Christopher could blithely ignore the fact that the Founders did not make the president commander in chief only in wartime.

The Founders comprehended full well that times would come when the president, in his judgment, would act absent a war declaration. Congress’s authority in those cases is limited to refusing to fund a military action, declining to commission his officers, or impeaching the president. Despite a lot of huffing and puffing by the legislative leadership of Messrs. and Mmes. Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Obama, Murtha, and Kerry, we have learned that such an effort is difficult to mount even against an unpopular president in the sixth year of an unpopular war.

Even the 1973 War Powers act has proven to be a dead letter. It was passed by a Congress that was preparing to betray Free Vietnam and required the president to report on any armed conflict within 60 days of its commencement and end the fighting unless Congress either declares war or extends the 60 day period under the law. But no president since its passage has regarded the law as constitutional. Presidents from both parties have declined to notify Congress under its terms of military actions.

In the battle of Iraq, Democrats in Congress have fallen back on false claims that they were duped into supporting American entry into the fight. Given all the time the Congress devoted to Iraq in the years leading up to it — including an Iraq Liberation Act that passed by a nearly unanimous vote — it is just hard to see the current proposal as anything but a gambit designed to make it harder for the president to carry out his constitutional oath, a matter that should be of equal concern to both Senators McCain and Obama. Whichever of them is inaugurated in January will be much better off if the Baker-Christopher measure fizzles.