<Congress and the President have waged battle over which branch of the government has the constitutional authority over taking the nation to war>
The author of this article is clearly not a Literalist, or a Strict Constructionist. He is a relativist, who takes the liberty of creatively revising and imagining and expanding. He thinks words can mean whatever people want them to mean, even the opposite of the original meaning.
In fact, the Constitution does not divide the war power; it is given exclusively to Congress. There is no ambiguity, except for those who don't want to be held by the restrictions in the Constitution.
<After considerable debate the Framers gave the President the power to repel attacks against the nation and to take sudden action to protect the national security of the nation.>
There is nothing in the Constitution that says that. There are quotes by some of the Framers (especially Washington and Hamilton) to support that opinion.
He makes a catalog of the various (and variously successful) attempts by Presidents, over the years, to usurp Congress's war power. And he lists the various ways Presidents have tried to "pull a fast one":
1. Once the shooting has started, it's very hard to stop, and the "rally round the flag" effect will stifle dissent. So, giving the President the power to start shooting, and only then go to the Congress for approval, effectively nullifies Congress's war power.
2. Blurring the distinction between firing on pirates, and sending 200,000 soldiers to overthrow and occupy a foreign nation, is another way to let the President do whatever he wants.
3. Saying that a Congressional resolution is equivalent to a Declaration of War, is another blurring, another dishonesty.
4. Most of our wars (and all recent ones) have been optional, and there was plenty of time for Congress to decide, beforehand, whether and where to commit large military forces.
5. <During the Vietnam War Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving President Johnson broad powers to retaliate against North Vietnamese attack on American vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin.> That was the lie Johnson used, in exactly the same way Bush used his WMD lie. In fact, as subsequant revelations have made crystal clear, in the Gulf of Tonkin the U.S. was the aggressor. We invaded the territorial waters of N. Vietnam, and (as all nation-states have the right to) they defended against the violation of their sovereinty.
6. <Congress can declare war but the decision to go to war rest solely with the President.> What he's saying, is that Congress's war power should be reduced to a legalism, a mere formality, while the substance of power should be transferred entirely to the President. This is the plain opposite of what the Constitution says, and the Founders intended.
7. <It would seem very cumbersome for the President of the United States to refer to Congress every time he wants to use the military in a foreign adventure.> Yes. Exactly. The Founders saw the risk of an Imperial Presidency, and they designed the separation of powers, to make it "cumbersome" to go to war. Efficiency was not their goal. Avoiding tyranny and unnecessary wars was their goal.
Our government has been working very hard, to dismantle all the "cumbersome" Constitutional limits on Executive power. War powers. Habeas Corpus. Right to a trial. What's next?
What part of "Congress shall have the power to declare war" is hard to understand? This article ignores everything, literally everything, that every one of the Founders said about the war power. |
