Here, in capsule form, is what the Democrats should about Iran:
It would be unconstitutional for the president to initiate hostilities with Iran without congressional approval. It would also be folly for us Americans to leave such a decision to a group that has blundered so badly in making such decisions in the past.
Here is a further explication of this two-fold position.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT
First, there's the constitutional argument. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to declare war. The United States does not use such declarations any more, it seems, at least not since immediately after Pearl Harbor. But the meaning of the provision is clear: the decision to initiate armed hostilities with another nation is for the Congress to make. There's plenty of documentary evidence regarding the intent of the Framers: they did NOT want the president to make such decisions unilaterally.
The powers of the commander-in-chief may extend to dealing militarily with urgent matters, where the national interest requires immediate action and cannot await congressional deliberation and approval. But the present issue with Iran is no such matter.
The question whether to go to war to prevent some country from developing nuclear weapons is a long-term, fully premeditated decision. And the Constitution gives the power to make that decision to the Congress.
As a political strategy, the essence of this constitutional argument is this: make the issue one of presidential over-reaching, not one of national security."
This approach avoids the necessity for the Democrats to say anything about national security that the Bushite propagandists can use in their usual way: support the president or you'll die. And the Bushites are so adamant about the president as dictator --apparently so constitutionally (as it were) incapable of acknowledging the legitimate rights and powers of the other branches of government-- that there's a good possibility that the entire battle with the regime can be fought on these constitutional grounds.
Not only does focusing on the constitutional issue have the great advantage of avoiding those national security grounds that apparently are so frightening for the Democrats to confront the Bushites on, it also provides grounds that are both advantageous to the Democrats and vital for the country.
In other words, the Bushite beating of the drums of war against Iran provides an important opportunity to dramatize the larger issue --I would say the largest issue facing America-- of the president's lawlessness, and of the vital importance of re-establishing such vital American principles as the system of checks and balances, the three co-equal branches of government, and the rule of law.
And if the Republicans refuse to support a resolution along these lines, affirming Congress's constitutional authority of declaring war, this provides yet another opportunity. Such a refusal would enable the Democrats to raise to prominence yet another issue: Did not you Republicans take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? How can you justify putting your loyalty to your partisan president ahead of your sworn oath to defend the Constitution?
In other words, Republican support for Bush's usurpations on this issue can be an opening through which the Republicans can be hammered for the larger pattern of their being accessories to the Bushite assault on the Constitution they swore upon the Bible that they would defend.
THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT
And then there’s the practical question: would you want to buy another war from the people who manufactured the debacle in which we're now mired in Iraq?
If the possibility of war must be faced, why would we want for it to be made by those who, in Iraq, made so many serious misjudgments?
Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. Schmookler is also the author of such books as The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating the Good Society: A Quest to Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states.
Bomb the **** out of Iran. Bomb the **** out of Pakistan. Bomb the **** out of Burma, and Cuba, and, uh there's a sayin' here. I'm not sure if its in Tennessee or, uh...maybe its in Texas where our children is learning, and uh, Barney, did I tell ya that uh, there are vets, uh, OBGYNs in Brazil who, uh, practice love on uh...you know, they have Scotties, too?
Oh no! Was I doing it again? The more depressed I become in my search for America lost, the more I seem to "channel" the CIC. I suppose it is only natural, as he has taken residence in my nightmares.
All joking aside, I expect Congress will deal with Iran in the same inept way with which they have dealt with every pressing matter facing our country. The will hoot and holler, protest and pontificate, take a call from Cheney the Destroyer, and do exactly what the president wants them to do, lest every dirty secret from their personal lives be exposed.
What they should do is communicate and compromise, as JFK did with Krushchev. If congress possessed any morals at all, if it were at all attuned to the populace, it would take every opportunity to avert another war. But sadly, it is war and not the lack of it which lines pockets. And, if it's members had not so many dirty little secrets, the right thing just might be done.
by
Lauria Hale (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments)
on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 at 12:36:27 AM
The recommendations given are sound and are valid, they are exactly the same as were given prior to the invasion of Iraq, and they were not used then nor will they be now.
point the second;
The article asumes that there is, in Congress, an opposition to Bush policies and programs, there is not. What there is instead is some flowery rhetoric for the news papers and TV media and then complicity and compliance on the floor.
A perfect example came early this morning when Feinstein and Schumer decided to break with the other democrats on the committee and vote to send the Mukasey nomination to the floor for a vote. The Democratic Party is not a joke, the issues are far to serious to use such a term. They are traitors to the Constitution and to the values of our founders, nothing less.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 at 6:54:35 AM
What's the evidence that Dems care about the Constitution?
There have been scores of opportunities since 2000 to attack Bush for violating the Constitution, presidential over-reaching, etc. The Dems have not even raised the issue. They haven't challenged Bush on a single thing -- illegal invasions, torture, rendition, warrantless wiretaps, etc. On the contrary, they've often provided tacit or even explicit support for Bush's overreaching.
It's true as you say that "the Bushite beating of the drums of war against Iran provides an ...opportunity to dramatize the larger issue ...of the president's lawlessness, and of ...re-establishing ... the system of checks and balances..."
But if the Dems haven't used the many such opportunities they've already been presented with, why would they suddenly astonish everyone by using this one?
Why have they gone along, as full partners with Republicans, in building the military-industrial complex to its current levels, since WWII? Why have they gone along with the dozens of CIA coups & 3rd world interventions?
There's a difference between being seriously dedicated to the "rule of law," and merely paying lip-service to it. The Dems are not seriously committed to preserving the Constitution, & won't lift a finger to defend it, any more than they have in the last 7 years.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1212 comments)
on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 at 11:04:58 AM
You may be right about how much anyone (or at least any large faction) cares about the Constitution.
On the other hand, it is also possible not to be terribly concerned about the Constitution but still care about whether this regime drives the U.S. into another major disaster like Iraq.
If one cares about the latter, challenging the authority of those who gave us the Iraq disaster to unilaterally decide to give us an Iran disaster could be an effective strategy to block that outcome.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments)
on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 at 11:16:04 AM
5 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
