An interesting op-ed from former Secretaries of State James Baker (Bush 41) and Warren Christopher (Clinton's first term).  They are pushing a new bill that would require more consultation between Congress and the White House before war is not only declared, but acted out in all its practical implications. 

Their point is that ever since the 1973 War Powers Act, that sought to limit Presidential authority in military affairs in the wake of Vietnam and Watergate, the President has essentially seen it as an unconstitutional usurpation of power by Congress and virtually ignored it.  While debateable whether this was necessary given the exigencies of the moment, it is deemed to have eroded democratic checks and balances.  Consequently, a law that is both less restrictive, yet far more consultative would bring balance back to the war making powers as outlined in the Constitution.

First, I believe the Executive Branch must have much if not quite complete autonomy when it comes to foreign relations.  Congress is not equipped to deal secretly and stealthily in the face of the kinds of challenges that confront the nation in this day and age.  Any effort to tie the Presidency may well result in hobbling its capacity to respond.  Yes, I know the criticisms of this particular White House and its penchant for secrecy, et al., but the nature of international relations makes me firmly believe the consequences of a weakened Presideny is greater than those of a strengthened one.

Whether this proposed law advocated by Baker and Christopher is a step to bringing Congress back in to the process through a more legitimate (as opposed to partisan fashion) could be appropriate so as to avoid the common feeling that the President is himself usurping Constitutional powers I am not sure.   I am skeptical we will ever get to a point where petty political squabbles won't hamstring effective action.  I suppose the proof would be in the pudding and known only after the law were passed and challenged through the crucible of experience.