January 26, 2007

The U.S. Congress Vs The U.S. Constitution

There was an on-point editorial in yesterday’s Opinion Journal that very definitely bears reading.

To understand why the Founders put war powers in the hands of the Presidency, look no further than the current spectacle in Congress on Iraq. What we are witnessing is a Federalist Papers illustration of criticism and micromanagement without responsibility.

Consider the resolution pushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday by Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel, two men who would love to be President if only they could persuade enough voters to elect them. Both men voted for the Iraq War. But with that war proving to be more difficult than they thought, they now want to put themselves on record as opposing any further attempts to win it.

Their resolution–which passed 12-9–calls for Iraqis to “reach a political settlement” leading to “reconciliation,” as if anyone disagrees with that necessity. But then it declares that the way to accomplish this is to wash American hands of the Iraq effort, proposing that U.S. forces retreat to protect the borders and hunt terrorists. The logic here seems to be that if the Americans leave, Iraqis will miraculously conclude that they have must settle their differences. A kind of reverse field of dreams: If we don’t come, they will build it.

When the Democrats proclaimed that Iraq would be another Vietnam, what they didn’t add was that they intended to make it so in every way possible, duplicating the strategy they used to sabotage and sell out our military forces during that war.

And like during the Vietnam era, the Democrats in Congress are exceeding their authority by stepping on that which the Constitution assigns the President. Most of them voted for the war, after which their only responsibility was to step back and allow the President to prosecute it.

To add to that, continuing to do the same things that lost them the Congressional majority, the Republicans on the Hill are still disgracing the party by kissing up to the Democrats and neglecting to support the President, essentially looking after their own careers rather than looking after the nation they were elected to govern. A number of those careers ended in November of last year, but no lesson seems to have been learned.

All of this also applies to the many Congressional efforts to set “benchmarks” or otherwise micromanage the battlefield. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she is “cursed with the responsibility gene” that makes her unwilling to cut off funds, but instead she proposes to set a cap on U.S. troops in the theater. So while General Petraeus says he needs more troops to fulfill his mission, General Clinton says he doesn’t. Which battlefield commander do you trust?

House Republicans are little better. They blame Mr. Bush and Iraq for their loss of Congress, rather than their own ethics, earmarks and other failures. So looking ahead to 2008 they now want to distance themselves from the war they voted for, albeit also without actually having to vote against it. Thus their political brainstorm is to demand monthly “benchmarks for success” that the Bush Administration and Iraqis will have to meet.

So every 30 days, General Petraeus and his men will have to take their attention away from the Baghdad campaign and instead report to Congress on how well Iraqis and Americans are communicating with one another, among other crucial matters. Minority Leader John Boehner is even asking Speaker Nancy Pelosi to create another special Congressional committee to look over the general’s shoulder. It’s a shame Ulysses S. Grant isn’t around to tell them where to put their special committee.

In addition to being feckless, all of this is unconstitutional. As Commander-in-Chief, the President has the sole Constitutional authority to manage the war effort. Congress has two explicit war powers: It has the power to declare war, which in the case of Iraq it essentially did with its resolution of 2003. It also has the power to appropriate funds.

There is a long and unsettled debate over whether Congress can decide to defund specific military operations once it has created a standing Army. We lean toward those who believe it cannot, but the Founders surely didn’t imagine that Congress could start dictating when and where the 101st Airborne could be deployed once a war is under way.

Mr. Bush was conciliatory and respectful in his State of the Union Address Tuesday night, asking Congress to give his new Iraq strategy a chance. In a better world, the Members would do so. But if they insist on seeking political cover by trying to operate as a committee of 535 Commanders-in-Chief, Mr. Bush will have to start reminding Congress who really has the job.

The editorial can be read in its entirety here.

by @ 4:24 pm. Filed under Uncategorized
Trackback URL for this post:
http://hardastarboard.mu.nu/wp-trackback.php?p=617

9 Responses to “The U.S. Congress Vs The U.S. Constitution”

  1. wordsmith Says:

    Excellent find!

    Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel, two men who would love to be President if only they could persuade enough voters to elect them.

    Pfft….I want it to go on record that their nonbinding resolution binds them to the fact that they are on record as being defeatists without backbone to stand up and do what is right, even if it doesn’t appear to serve them politically. I believe, in fact, that they are better served politically, if they stood firm and steadfast like the President and DO THE RIGHT THING!!! Did General Petraeus not tell them that the enemy would draw comfort from such a resolution in Congress?

  2. Ken Taylor Says:

    Thank God the Founders had the wisdom to see an out of control Congress attempting to usurp the military and gave us a Constitution making ONE and only ONE Cammander in Chief.

  3. BB-Idaho Says:

    The issue of constitutional responsibilities
    regarding war is a little cloudy, all right.
    However, it is still our government, and if
    like Viet Nam, it takes 4 administrations to
    figure it out, well so be it. It has been
    said that in contrast to the ‘greatest generation,
    ours is the ‘me’ generation–I suspect we need
    a few major victories to keep our short attention
    span focused.

  4. Seth Says:

    Wordsmith –

    Just as General Giap took comfort from and extended the Vietnam war thanks to the work of our liberals back in that conflict, the current crop in Congress are working to “accomplish” the same thing in Iraq.

    Ken –

    If only the Democrats had any respect for the Constitution…

    BB –

    Victory in Iraq is imperative not just for refocusing our short attention span, because defeat would reverberate, catastrophically, far beyond the borders of Iraq and far beyond that part of the world.

  5. Old Soldier Says:

    Excellent post, Seth.

    Perhaps it is a bit too soon to offer our constitution to the Iraqis. Maybe someone is actually reading it. (It’s for certain it isn’t the cut ‘n run crowd in the Congress!

    Great stuff, thanks!

  6. Seth Says:

    Old Soldier –

    Thanks!

    It looks to me like year by year, our elected officials are gradually weaning themselves off the Constitution, and rewriting it, sans amendments, according to the dictates of convenience and in a manner often referred to as “winging it”.

  7. civil truth Says:

    This is a creative commentary on the current state of affairs:

    Imaginary Editorial from 1863: Lincoln Ignores Rebuke of the People

    Here’s the first paragraph:

    Yesterday, Jan. 2, 1863, President Lincoln signed his “Emancipation Proclamation.” Despite the “sweeping revolution of public sentiment”* that was expressed in the recent elections against the War against the South, against Lincoln’s despotic and unconstitutional intent to emancipate the Southern slaves, and against the Republican Party in general, Lincoln remained stunningly defiant. In doing so, Mr. Lincoln plowed head-first through the Supreme Court of our country and its decision in Dred Scott, and shredded through our great Constitution which gives him no power to take such action.

    Would that Mr. Bush have the vision and stamina of Abraham Lincoln.

  8. Seth Says:

    Civil Truth –

    Excellent!

    Bush’s greatest shortcoming where Iraq is concerned is that he capitulates too readily in the political arena, which in turn detracts from his “staying the course”.

  9. Robert Says:

    To say nothing of the 49% of democrats, as reported by Real Clear Politics.com, that actually DESIRE the President’s plan to fail. I think Hagel msut have been one of those included in the poll. But wait, isn’t he a republican? Dusgusting that the American people continually tolerate, indeed even encourage, lack of principle.