RSS 2.0 FeedGeorge Bush Ignores The Constitution
by Doug MataconisFirst it was Vice-President Cheney saying that the United States would have invaded Iraq in 2003 even if Congress had said no, know President Bush has said that he will go forward with the so-called surge plan even if Congress votes against the plan:
Faced with substantial opposition both in Congress and among the American public to their Iraq plans, President Bush and Vice President Cheney vowed yesterday to forge ahead with the deployment of more than 21,000 additional troops.
In an interview broadcast last night on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Bush said he has the authority as commander in chief to move ahead with the deployment, regardless of what the Democratic-controlled Congress does in opposition.
“In this situation, I do, yeah,” Bush said. “I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I’ve made my decision. And we’re going forward.”
National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said yesterday that the money is already in place to begin moving additional troops to Iraq.
“We have authority in the — we have money in the ‘07 budget, which has been appropriated by the Congress, to move these troops to Iraq, and the president will be doing that,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Let’s take a look at what the Constitution has to say about this. For example, Article II, Section 8 states that Congress has the power:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
The President, meanwhile,
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
In other words, Congress authorizes war and funds it. The President carries it out. Or at least that’s the way it was supposed to be.
Since the end of World War II, the United States has been involved in sustained military action in Korea, Vietnam, Central America, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Not one of those occasions involved a formal declaration of war. Instead, the President has assumed the powers to send American military forces into hostile, even war-like, action first, and ask Congress for permission later.
Now, Bush is essentially saying that he doesn’t really need to ask Congress for permission. And I don’t think anyone is going to stop him.
Previous Post:
Dick Cheney Ignores The Constitution
Hey, Sport! Don’t get too excited! Really! When you stop and think about it, Bush isn’t even close to ol’ Andy Jackson. Now that guy really knew how to twist Congress and the Constitution into knots. No, I personally think J.R.’s just getting a late start. He hasn’t actually done anything since he won re-election two years ago. And since he only has less than two years left, I can’t imagine he can really do too much harm to the Constitution. Not with all those “Wanna-Be-President” Senators out sound-biting all over the country and not earning their paychecks in the Senate. Not to worry! Thing’s will be OK.
Comment by Rue-Mur — January 15, 2007 @ 6:22 amPS: Wouldn’t it be fantastic if he actually started acting like our Commander-in-Chief? Oh well, it doesn’t hurt to dream. Right?
I personally support the war in Iraq. More troops are in fact needed. That does not however give the president the power to make that happen. There are many convincing arguments for the war and I believe congress would grant a request for additional forces. Even strong opponents of the war have supported the deployment of additional troops. Sadly, in our political system, the idea of war is supported or rejected by many without regard to the objective of that war. That objective is largely to uphold the integrity of this nation. I believe Bush is trying to do that from one perspective; He does not want to leave the job unfinished. He’s right in that regard. However, too much of his time and effort are spent trying to justify the war, rather than fight it. It’s a little late in the game for justification, that needed to be done before any troops were deployed at all. A greater respect for due process could have helped him evade many of these problems and allow him to focus on his role as commander and chief. The job of justifying our nations actions would have fallen to Congress. 535 men and women from every part of the country and representing the wider spectrum of political affiliations would have greater merit and credibility than one man from one party. Bush could’ve been seen as the respectable leader, admired by his people. His haste has instead made him the subject of a political witch hunt, and we, the people are paying for it.
Comment by Vlatro — January 15, 2007 @ 7:55 amWhat folks seem to be forgetting is that the House and Senate both authorized the use of military force by overwhelming margins.
It’s really easy now to say “get out.” Things are going badly in Iraq. Who among us doesn’t want to leave. It’s a great temptation.
I wonder where some of critics would have been back in 1864 when things were going badly for the Union in our Civil War. My guess is they’d have probably been in the majority, characterizing Lincoln as a monkey and calling for a settlement with the confederacy.
I also wonder where this might put us today. It could be that we wouldn’t be celebrating Martin Luther King and his legacy of civil rights. It could be that involuntary servitude would still be the law of the land in some parts of this country. We may even have wound up with two countries.
Yeah, it is easy. Just flow with the tide of unpopularity, like chaff in the wind. Pretend that you’re constitutional experts while you’re not much more than outhouse lawyers.
There’s one other thing I’m wondering about. What do you propose we do when we fail in Iraq and the wolf of international terrorism comes to our shores in iderations far more deadly than 9-11? Or, do you propose we covene a consortium of outhouse lawyers to solve the problem?
Comment by Phil Dillon — January 15, 2007 @ 8:41 amPhil: I personally think the whole ‘let’s fight ‘em there so we don’t have to fight them here’ thing is hogwash.
Comment by gregdn — January 15, 2007 @ 9:06 amTerrorists will try to slip in this country no matter what happens in Iraq. We need better border security to prevent that.
I do hope the ’surge’ works but if, after 6 mos. violence isn’t down in Baghdad I think we should pull the plug.
Never, Never, Never Surrender.
Comment by Stevend — January 15, 2007 @ 9:39 amDoug,
The Constitution is on Bush’s side vis a vis the surge. Congress can declare war and can fund the war. However, the conduct and strategy of the war is up to the president. The “surge” is a strategy of the president to a war that Congress has already approved (whether or not the approval of the Iraq War is legal is another issue).
Congress has no authority to deny funding for the “surge” or to tie funding to it. That would be Congress trying to dictate strategy, which they cannot do under the Constitution. However, what they can do is cut off funding for the entire Iraq War and there is nothing Bush can do about it.
Comment by Kevin — January 15, 2007 @ 9:53 am“To Declare War”…
Congress has the ability and authority to DECLARE war, which they did (or at least under their own stupid War Powers Act gave him the authority to invade).
They do NOT have the authority to DECLARE an armistance, or make PEACE. That is the province of the State Department, part of the Executive Branch, who would conclude a treaty, which would then be ratified by the Congress.
Sorry, you understanding of the Constitution, and history, seems limited.
Comment by Romeo13 — January 15, 2007 @ 10:05 amUmm, slick?? actually, we are already in a war that congress has authorized. And as commander in chief, Bush is executing that war. (How well or not is a whole different debate) All that he is doing is bringing in additional, needed, troops - which a commander in chief has every constitutional right to do. Now, congress has the authority to cut off the funding for it….that’s part of their constitutional right/duty - like how we lost/ran from Vietnam. Rest assured…if they cut off the funding this time, too, there will also be another bloodbath we leave behind - Call it a “cultural” thing, but if we run, it will happen. — and we will never be trusted again by those that are for Liberty and Freedom in the Arab world - or anywhere else despots rule, for that matter….
Comment by JoJoJams — January 15, 2007 @ 10:10 amRomeo13,
But they can refuse to fund a war and the Executive Branch would have no choice but to seek peace.
Comment by Kevin — January 15, 2007 @ 10:29 amAside from an its obvious defect of being a law likely to be overturned by the Supremes, why isn’t anybody (including Ted Kennedy) talking about the War Powers Act? If Congress is really serious about a “redeployment,” why not invoke the War Powers Act and bring the troops home in 90 days?
Comment by A Waco Farmer — January 15, 2007 @ 1:54 pmBecause they don’t want to be seen as “anti-military” and “anti-American” for starters.
Comment by Kevin — January 15, 2007 @ 2:08 pm