An "Op Ed" from the Cato Institute, via "NRO." I agree. Hold everyone's feet to the fire on this one. No "Free Ride" for those who don't want us to intervene, make them vote on it. If the vote is against us going in, fine. Then we will know who to hold responsible if things go wrong.
August 8, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
Get a Declaration
The president should not act alone.
By Doug Bandow
After months of Bush administration threats to attack Iraq, the U.S. Senate has finally held hearings on the prospect of war. It was a welcome step forward by the American Congress to involve itself in such a crucial issue. But hearings are not nearly enough: Congress must approve any presidential proposal to go to war.
Article 1, Sec 8 (11) of the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall have the power... to declare war." The president is commander-in-chief, but he must fulfill his responsibilities subject to the control of the Congress. After Sept. 11, the Congress authorized the president to retaliate against any "nations, organization or persons" he determined to be involved in the atrocity. However, there apparently is no hard evidence linking even that ugliest of regimes, Iraq, to the September attacks.
So the administration is emphasizing an alternative justification for attacking Iraq: the refusal to accept United Nations inspections to deter the development of weapons of mass destruction.
Nonproliferation is a worthy concern, but the president has no authority to act for this reason. For that he must go to the Congress.
Today U.S. presidents prefer to make the decision for war themselves. In effect, they claim power comparable to the head of the Soviet Communist party. As then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger observed: "Now who among the Soviets voted that they should invade Afghanistan? Maybe one, maybe five men in the Kremlin. Who has the ability to change that and bring them home? Maybe one, maybe five men in the Kremlin. Nobody else. And that is, I think, the height of immorality."
Now who among Americans has voted to attack, say, Iraq? Should one man in the White House make that decision, it would also be the height of immorality.
One of the criticisms of the British king by America's Founders was that he could unilaterally drag his nation into war. The Framers of the Constitution consciously rejected such a system. Still, some early Americans opposed the proposed constitution because they feared that it gave similar monarchical authority to the chief executive.
Don't worry, explained that great friend of executive power, Alexander Hamilton, an early treasury secretary. The president's power was "in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the land and naval forces... while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war."
The Founders carefully drafted the Constitution because they feared that presidents would abuse their power as they do now. Explained the future U.S. President James Madison in 1793, it is necessary to adhere to the "fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature."
Delegates to a constitutional convention did change Congress' power from "make" to "declare" war, but they intended to give the president authority to respond to a sudden attack, not initiate a conflict. The president "is not safely to be entrusted with" the power to decide on war, said George Mason at the convention. James Wilson, observed that, "It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress."
Of course, there always will be potential gray areas in today's complicated world. But most cases, such as attacking Iraq, are clear. The president must go to the Congress.
Are there any legitimate exceptions to the congressional war power? Some analysts would have people believe that in the modern world it is simply impractical to involve legislators in foreign policy-making.
No one thinks that 535 legislators should manage the ensuing war ? that's why the Constitution names the president commander-in-chief. But the Congress must decide whether or not the president will have a war to run.
Some would expand the president's power to use the military for "defensive" purposes. Defensive means defensive, however. Another constitutional convention delegate, Roger Sherman, said "the executive should be able to repel and not to commence war."
In an uncertain world, presidents also like to argue that they must be able to respond to unpredictable events. But there is almost always time to go to the Congress, as even after the Sept. 11 attack.
There certainly is no hurry to make war on Iraq, especially since the Bush administration itself says that it will not act before the election. And the Congress could avoid tipping off Baghdad as to the timing of any strike by debating a conditional declaration, which would authorize President Bush to act under specified circumstances.
Today, the favorite presidential excuse for claiming the right to unilaterally initiate war is: Everyone else does it. But the Constitution does not disappear because past presidents have ignored it.
Whatever the target and whatever the reason, American presidents should not risk the lives of young Americans in foreign adventures without congressional consent. The decision of war and peace is far too important to leave to one man, however honest, smart, or popular.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and the author and editor of several books. |
