Recently in General Chat Category
It's been a long time since I delved into the specifics of the Constitution. In my youth I was a passionate student of history and of political science, linked together by a marvelous high school American History teacher whose approach to teaching the subject was to sequentially cover in some detail each Presidential election, the platforms of each party on the ballot, and tying it into the prevailing economic, social, and political environment. It was a wonderfully rich learning experience. Recently, I ran across this editorial, and the argument it presents took me back to those days and struck me as incisive and fact-based - an increasingly rare thing in the journalistic community the last several years. I am posting it here without comment to encourage some intelligent, civil discussion amongst my gentle readers. I know it doesn't have anything to do with dogs, but its entertaining nonetheless....
Editorial Observer
Congress, the Constitution and War: The Limits on Presidential Power
By ADAM COHEN
Published: January 29, 2007
President Bush doesn't seem to care that Congress wants a bigger role in guiding the
It is hardly the first time this president has insisted that he is "the decider," or even the first time he's used the Constitution to justify it, as Vice President Dick Cheney did when he told Fox News: "The Constitution is very clear that the president is, in fact, under Article 2, the commander in chief."
But Mr. Cheney told only half the story. Congress has war powers, too, and with 70 percent of Americans now opposed to President Bush's handling of the war, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll, it is becoming more assertive about them. Congress is poised to pass a resolution denouncing the troop increase. Down the line, Congress may well consider mandatory caps on the number of troops in
If it does, we may be headed toward a constitutional clash, with the administration trying to read powers into the Constitution -- as it has with its "enemy combatant" doctrine and presidential "signing statements" -- that the Founders did not put there. The Constitution's drafters were intent on balancing power so no one branch could drift toward despotism. The system of checks and balances that runs through the document divides the war power between the president and Congress.
The Constitution's provision that the president is the commander in chief clearly puts him at the top of the military chain of command. Congress would be overstepping if, for example, it passed a law requiring generals in the field to report directly to the speaker of the House.
But the Constitution also gives Congress an array of war powers, including the power to "declare war," "raise and support armies" and "make rules concerning captures on land and water." By "declare war," the Constitution's framers did not mean merely firing off a starting gun. In the 18th century, war declarations were often limited in scope -- European powers might fight a naval battle in the
The Founders, including James Madison, who is often called "the father of the Constitution," fully expected Congress to use these powers to rein in the commander in chief. "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,"
In the early days of the republic, the Supreme Court made clear that Congress could limit the president's war powers -- notably in the Flying Fish case. In 1799, during the "Quasi War," the undeclared sea war between the
When the Flying Fish was seized while sailing from a French port -- something Congress had not authorized -- the ship's owner sued. The Supreme Court decided in his favor, ruling that the president had no right to issue the order he did. John Marshall, the nation's greatest chief justice, declared that even in a time of hostilities, a president's decision to act militarily beyond what Congress had authorized was "unlawful."
The court has repeatedly reinforced this principle. In 1952, in the steel seizure case, it ruled that President Harry Truman could not seize steel mills to avert a strike -- even though steel was needed for the Korean War -- because Congress had set out a different way of handling the labor unrest. More recently, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it held that President Bush must follow Congressional guidelines when he sets up military tribunals for detainees.
Past Congresses have enacted just the sort of restrictions the Bush administration is trying to foreclose today. During the Vietnam War, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 capped the number of American military personnel in
There is little question that Congress could use its power of the purse to end a war. But cutting off financing is a drastic step, and one that members of Congress are understandably reluctant to take, because it can look like a refusal to support the troops. The Constitution's text, Supreme Court cases and history show, however, that Congress can instead pass laws that set the terms of military engagement. Whether it would be wise for Congress to adopt such limits is debatable; whether it has the authority to do so should not be.
The Bush administration insists that if Congress tries to manage the
So... the Kellyn Labradors blog is finally off to a start. We'll have to see how committed I am to keeping this up over the long haul, but hopefully I'll look back on this in a couple of years and think to myself "this has been fun!" and keep it up.
One of the hopes that I have for this blog is that it creates a place for people to come to read about the wonderful Labrador Retriever breed, and to discuss through comments what is important to them, and what makes them happy during the time they spend with their dogs, their friends, and their friends' dogs. From time to time I'll publish something meaningful to someone, and there may be things that don't even relate to dogs, venturing off into some other space motivated by whatever happens on that particular day.
If someone stumbles across this blog and they wonder to themselves, "Who are these people???", I would direct them to our website for a good starting place. It's a good place to get some background information about us and our involvement in Labrador Retrievers over the past several years (since 1984). If you're one of those folks, here's the address:
http://www.kellyn.com/kellynlabs/
Fair warning: there will be days when I get up on the wrong side of the bed (doesn't everyone?) and I hear something on the news or on the Today Show that stirs my pot. I may use the blog to vent a bit - hell, I may as well just let you know, I will do some of that because y'know what? It's my blog, right? If you read something that really flips your switch feel free to leave a comment. It's a public forum to some extent, but I will control some of the content and censor as required. Blatantly offensive remarks, or personal attacks on other non-public figures will be dealt with forthrightly -- as in blocked or deleted as needed to maintain decorum. However, healthy and informed debate is always welcome....
That's it - the first real blog entry. Welcome, come back often, and chime in whenever you agree or disagree with a position expressed here, and are inspired to put it in writing.
Take care of you and yours....
