The National War Powers Commission, co-chaired by former Secretaries of State James Baker (R) and Warren Christopher (D), wants the next Congress to replace the resolution with the War Power Consultation Act.

“This is a practical solution to a theoretical debate,” Baker said. He noted that the conclusions of the committee were unanimous, and said the rule of law is “undermined” by the current War Powers Resolution.

“From the standpoint of Congress, [the new act] gives Congress a seat at the table in deciding whether or not to go to war,” Christopher said.

The act would establish a “Joint Congressional Consultation Committee,” consisting of the Speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader, the minority leaders of both chambers and the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Intelligence and Appropriations committees, with which the president would have to consult before going to war.

The new law would require the Congress to pass a concurrent resolution approving the conflict within 30 days of the consultation if it does not expressly authorize the conflict or declare war. If such a resolution were to fail, the Congress could opt to pass a resolution of disapproval. If that resolution was approved, the president would have the option of vetoing it. Congress could then attempt to override the veto.

It’s unclear exactly what might happen in that scenario, although the report suggests the override would not be binding on the president. According to the report, a successful override would force the president to confront “political reality.” It notes that Congress could press to make the resolution binding, and that it would have the “power of the purse” to cut off funds for a war.

Critics of the War Powers Resolution have said it is unconstitutional because it gives Congress the ability to undermine the president’s ability to make or declare war. Baker and Christopher said their proposal would pass constitutional muster.

Baker said Tuesday that the committee had shared its findings with congressional leaders, as well as the presidential campaigns of both Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), but refused to say what the reactions were. “We’ll let them react,” he said.

President George H.W. Bush’s former secretary of State was also quick to mention that the committee’s findings were independent of past, present or future conflicts. Baker refused to say whether or not the Iraq war’s initiation would have lived up to the terms of the proposed law.

On the Republican side, Baker was joined by former Sen. Slade Gorton (Wash.), former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, former Trade Representative Carla Hills and former Army Secretary John Marsh.

Joining Christopher were Democrats Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission and co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group; President Clinton’s White House Counsel Abner Mikva; Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott; retired Adm. J. Paul Reason; and Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.