The next time a U.S. president concludes war is justified and necessary, the people’s representatives – Congress – should be more closely consulted and should have the final say over military action. It’s what the Constitution anticipated: giving Congress the power to declare and fund war, and the president the responsibility to run the war as commander-in-chief.

A commission led by former Secretaries of State Warren Christopher and James Baker has concluded the War Powers Act, created in 1973 to more clearly define government’s role in military actions that fall short of World War II proportions, is obsolete. Though Secretary Christopher, who served under President Clinton, and Secretary Baker, who served under the first President Bush, carefully avoided referring to the second President Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq, clearly that misadventure inspired a reconsideration of the process by which the U.S. goes to war.

As mistaken as George W. Bush was in taking the nation to war with Iraq, and how obviously deceptive the public relations campaign to sell the war was, some blame can be tied to the flawed mechanism that is the War Powers Act. That law came out of another U.S. politically inspired military debacle, the Vietnam War.

In a July 8 New York Times op-ed, the former secretaries argue the War Powers Act weakens the roles of both congress and the president, depending on the situation. It allows a president to commit troops to a region indefinitely without Congressional approval, but also denies the president “the power to respond to sudden attacks on Americans abroad,” the former secretaries wrote. They conclude the 1973 act is “ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst,” and “has been regularly ignored – a situation that undermines the rule of law, the centerpiece of American democracy.”

The bipartisan commission led by Secretaries Christopher and Baker recommends creating a new way to balance the roles of executive and legislative branches – the War Powers Consultation Act – which it hopes will be made law next year. It would require the president to consult with Congress before ordering a “significant armed conflict,” which is defined as combat expected to last more than a week. The new act would create a joint congressional committee of key Senate and House leaders to meet with the president before action, and also create a “permanent, bipartisan staff with access to all relevant intelligence and national-security information” to help guide it, they wrote.

For its part, Congress would have to either declare war or expressly authorize action, and if it fails to do so, it would have to vote within 30 days on a “resolution of approval” or “resolution of disapproval,” which in turn would have to pass a president’s veto.

In short, the new process would force the president and Congress to interact before a significant military action, which Secretaries Christopher and Baker believe the American people – and the Constitution – expect.

No presidential action has greater consequences than committing the nation to war. Deliberation, debate and, at times, delay, are essential to getting it right.