David Sirota summarizes on his blog (Sirotablog at workingforchange.com) the sentiment among many Congressional Democrats that there is little they can do to stop President Bush's proposed escalation of the Iraq War. They claim Congress largely lacks the power to prevent the President from inserting 20,000 more American troops in the middle of a Baghdad sectarian civil war fueled by hatreds both ancient and new and an Anbar Province guerilla insurgency that is a desert version of Viet Nam, or if you prefer, an American version of the successful 1916-1918 Arab guerilla revolt against an immensely more powerful occupying Turkish army glorified in "Lawrence of Arabia."
In response, I thought I would don my Community College part-time Political Science instructor and Master of Laws hats to set out and briefly analyze the basic Constitutional provisions on warfare powers. You may be surprised by how much power Congress really has.
Here are the Congress's powers regarding warfare, found in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
To declare war . . . and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies. . . ; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.
With regard to funding, the Constitution gives Congress the power to:
lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
Of course, we know that all bills regarding national spending must originate in the House of Representatives.
Here are the President's powers with regard to warfare, in Article II, Section 2:
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
What the Constitution called the Militia, we now call the National Guard.
Without making this a legal research paper, suffice it to say that the intent of the founders in making the President the Commander in Chief was to place the military under civilian, and therefore voter, control. It was NOT designed to make the President a military officer or the military a pawn of the President. Despite this fact, the Supreme Court has given the President rather expansive powers when acting as Commander In Chief in times of war. But the subject at hand is the power of Congress over warfare and its ability to prevent or alter President Bush's proposed surge of American troops into Iraq.
First, let's be very clear. What the Democrats are really talking about when they claim they lack power is politics. They are afraid they will be accused yet again of failing to support the troops and of being weak on the War on Terror, for one of the least understood principles in the Constitution's balance of warfare powers is the simple fact that without Congress there can be no military.
Only Congress has the power to "raise and support armies" and "provide and maintain a navy." In this sense, ONLY Congress, not the President, has the ultimate war power, the power to create a military in the first place. I am not speaking of wisdom, but power here. Surely Congress would never threaten to disband the American military and I would never suggest that, but Congress does have THAT MUCH POWER.
Yes, the President could veto any laws purporting to make changes in the military, subject to override by two-thirds of both Houses. The bottom line is that a relatively unified Congress has THAT MUCH POWER.
Do not let them get away with arguing they are subordinate to the President with regard to the military. If we are ever to free ourselves from the myth that the President has all the power when it comes to warfare, we the people must make Congress's actual power part of the public debate. That Congress can literally disband the military shows who has the real power.
The second principle on Congress's Constitutional power, as opposed to political wisdom, calculation or will, is the sole power to declare war. We all know Congress never declared war in Iraq. Thus, Congress could simply decide the President has no power to proceed in Iraq because it is an undeclared war. Congress may have precluded this route when it passed a resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq. Under the plain language of the Constitution, however, the power to declare war necessarily includes the power to undeclare war; the power to grant authorization to use force necessarily includes the power to rescind that authorization. One act Congress can take is to rescind the President's authorization to use force in Iraq or place limits on it, such as not sending more troops before a vote of the majority of the both Houses of Congress. Sirota notes that Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha and Ted Kennedy are all currently trying to impose such a limitation.
Bruce is 46 year-old father of one, stepfather of three and grandfather of two, who left a lucrative law practice at a large national law firm to work, advocate and write for social justice and equality and find a way to incorporate a spiritual life into the material world. He now struggles along to make a decent living while holding true to his deepest principles in Portland Oregon.
Back in my days at Junior College, thats mostly how I remember the War Powers Of Congress. Being electronics was my field, I spent little time in government classes.
Thanks for bringing these back to life for me as its been a well.
Good story, breaking it down in common terms made me think to post the part about war powers on The Peace Team Web given credit to the story and letting folks no where the full story was on OpEdNews.
Two thumbs Up
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 9:25:21 PM
Bruce Morris has at least four compelling arguments for why Congress has the power to alter events in Iraq. I will use one as a basis for my comment. But what I contend is that Congress, as a body, simply does not want to stop Iraq and that Iraq is but one example out of many. Through our foreign policy we have jumped onto a treadmill. We will likely fall if we jump off, we will exhaust ourselves if we stay. It doesn't look good either way and that's the rub.
Morris notes----------"WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT WHEN THEY CLAIM THEY LACK POWER IS POLITICS. THEY ARE AFRAID THEY WILL BE ACCUSED YET AGAIN OF FAILING TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS AND OF BEING WEAK ON THE WAR ON TERROR...."
I think these are legitimate fears on their part, but certainly not their principal fears. The issue is not simple, especially when one considers the complex nature of the political animal's makeup. Politicians are driven, as a group by ego, money, and power. Were they to come out against the war, they could be shooting themselves in their collective political foot. Thus they, as a collective body, may from time to time feign such opposition, but their main fear here is loss of the reelection contribution. The general population, as has been well demonstrated, has very little impact on that source of funding.
That's the political side of the issue. The more pragmatic side and something that the average citizen probably has not considered is the strength of the U.S. dollar and maintaining its position as the world's monetary symbol.
Our local paper recently presented an article entitled "History Lesson". It saw a comparison with current U.S foreign policy and an empire complex. Running an empire is a very serious adult game. There is bound to be collateral damage. Strategies include, as noted by other writers such as Stephen Lendman, keeping the understanding by the audience (U.S. Population) well in check. Bush and his administration are no fools and see very concrete reasons for this. Congress has also seen this, besides, large corporate profits, hence campaign funds are attached to running a war.
The article in the local paper also drew some parallels to what was termed as the naïve approach to understanding foreign policy, something that is ingrained within the U.S population. This makes it hard to come out with a rational frontal public approach and this is an unfortunate catch-22. One, during formative years, is told of lies via the cutting down of cherry trees; but some grow up differently. These others are thus destined to be politicians.
A civil war in Iraq may be part of the long-term strategy for the U.S. Our longer-term economic competitors include the EU and China. The latter's currency is as yet not considered a competitor to the global monetary system. The EU's euro, however is a serious competitor to the dollar and the dollar's very weak underpinning as the extant but highly fragile world monetary system. The system is built on puffery and no longer on a strong base.
The EU, as a structure is basically energy deficient. Look at the problem Germany is having with its plumbing from Russia. If we can choke off European access to the world's energy we will be better off from the perspective of empire theory. One way to do this is through civil war in the Middle East, especially via Iraq. We are close to attaining this goal, but not quite there, as yet. The turmoil arising from civil war will assure that the conflict continues for a considerable time---look at Somalia and its potential oil reserves. In the interim, access to oil reserves in Iraq and elsewhere are diminished, hence increased pressure on the EU. Further, if we can further the global warming trend (while protesting it is not real) we may see, as some contend, northern Europe sheeting over with ice in a decade or two. This would completely disrupt the EU. Thus one serious current economic competitor is out of the picture and then that competitor, now in turmoil, would then be dependent on the U.S. for exports and arms. For an idea of how one's position on this globe works, read Diamond's book---Guns Germs & Steel.
That civil wars have been instigated as proxy to drive deficits is nothing new to history, especially in the Middle East, including North Africa. A case in point is the civil war in the Sudan. If Sudan's agricultural potential were ever seen to come to fruition, the U.S wheat industry would take a serious hit. The Sudan's product would likely be offered for euros and not dollars. Also bringing in the Sudan's vast irrigation potential would disrupt water to Egypt, a U.S. ally where we provide about a $ billion + per year in non-military foreign aid. Thus a civil war is a cheap form of providing the instability---cheap insurance. Additionally, when I was posted in the Sudan with USAID, there was talk of underlying oil reserves, presumably also coveted by China. It is very difficult to get drilling crews to work while being in the midst of a civil war---the oil isn't going anywhere in the interim.
Much of all this, as I've just noted, has to do with the fragility of the dollar, which, as the world's monetary exchange system is barely hanging on. Were this to change to the EU's euro, the U.S. its economy and our way of life, as we know it, would be vastly changed. Hence this is a very exclusionary zero-sum adult game, a game lost on the average Archie Bunker.
There are a series of drivers involved in keeping Iraq and other areas in turmoil, but most boil down to the weak dollar and its current status as the world's monetary marker. Civil war is a very cheap tool for assisting our foreign policy and once accomplished requires little outside expense. This may be the underlying reason for Rumsfeld's former low budgetary allocations of troops and material to Iraq. Further, without oil we can run on nuclear energy and the people would be faced with that option. The proponents of nuclear energy would like nothing better than to see oil dry up. Civil war is an excellent desiccant.
As it stands, if the dollar dries up, the flight of U.S. corporations may at first increase, but not to worry, they as international morphs, will be back. They will return to the soon-to-be new hot bed of cheap labor, paid in some other currency to the now starving workers of the neo-American Third World.
We are on a treadmill. Enjoy your SUV while you can.
Dr Edo McGowan
by
Edo (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 5:49:31 AM
2 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 (
