See, your complaints are identical to leftist wackos about Bush the son over Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush the father in Kuwait, Reagan in the Grenada and Nicaragua, Clinton in the Balkans, Kennedy/Johnson in Vietnam, and Truman in Korea. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
READ THE STUPID WAR POWERS ACT
Mark Levin in his radio show was correct: before you have a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth, read the stupid law for yourself. The reference is USC Title 50 > Chapter 33 > War Powers Resolution. C’mon, do not be so lazy: Google it. I printed it out in Notepad, and it is only 4 pages from my el cheapo HP ink jet printer; there, was that so hard?
I am certainly not an expert, but it does seem that Sections 1541 and 1543 violate that separation of powers thing: Congress makes the law, and the President enforces it. The WPA seems to be telling the President how to do his job.
Also, the original proposal in the Constitutional Convention was for a 3 man council to exercise the powers of President. This idea was shot down, but only because they thought that war could not prosecuted by committee; a wise decision, but Congress appears to have reintroduced this idea via the WPA.
WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHER SAID ABOUT WAR
Despite what you may think, they were rather clear about what they meant. My reference is ‘Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison’ on page 475-6.
‘ “To make war.”
Mr. Pinkney opposed the vesting this power in the Legislature. Its proceedings were too slow. It would meet but once a year. The House of Representatives would be too numerous for such deliberations. The Senate would be the best depositary, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions. If the States are equally represented in Senate, so as to give no advantage to large States, the power will not withstanding be safe, as the small have their all at stake in such cases as well as the large States. It would be singular for one authority to make war, and another peace.
Mr. Butler. The objections against the Legislature lie in great degree against the Senate. He was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it.
Mr. Madison and Mr. Gerry moved to insert “declare,” striking out “make” war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.
Mr. Sharman thought it stood very well. The Executive should be able to repel and not to commence war. “Make” better than “declare” the latter narrowing the power too much.
Mr. Gerry never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.
Mr. Elsworth. There is a material difference between the cases of making war and making peace. It should be more easy to get out of war, than into it. War also is a simple and overt declaration, peace attended with intricate & secret negociations.
Mr. Mason. Was against giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred “declare” to “make”.
On the motion to insert “declare” in place of “make”, it was agreed to’.
HOW MANY ANGELS CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN?
To us today, this takes on the air of a quaint thing from yesteryear. However, do not be so cavalier: it encompassed the fundamental ideas of Jesus, Christianity, God, honesty, mercy, and the concept of western civilization itself (the consensus opinion, incidentally, was a dozen). Words mean things.
Do not allow yourself to be caught up in word games as to what constitutes war, and therefore requires a Congressional resolution, and what is an ordinary military operation, which is clearly in the constitutional purview of the Commander-in-Chief.
The same advice applies to deciding the dividing line between a simple military presence in a foreign country and prosecuting war.
(by the way, my previous answer about a dozen, I totally made up; see how easy it is to manipulate language?).
RULE AMERCIA; AMERICA RULES THE SEAS
See, the Founding Fathers did not anticipate a scenario where the US can, with ordinary, par military assets, topple a foreign, sovereign country. They never thought that the US would be the major, geopolitical force determining the future of worldwide humanity.
Therefore, it behooves us even more today than yesterday to discern what the construction workers on the Constitution really intended for our country, rather than what we wish them to say. Now, more than ever, we are in need of wise counsel; contemporary political rhetoric is not an adequate substitute.
INCOMPETANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
Yes, it is true: the President has not been a very effective CIC thus far. Presented with a fork in the road, he went on vacation to Rio. It is not clear what the American goal is in Libya, and his 7 page speech on Monday night only served to muddy the waters further, since we expected clear, unambiguous thinking, not platitudes.
He has not clearly articulated a justification for American military operations in Libya, nor has he gained the support of Congress or the American people.
Nevertheless, being a dweeb is not an impeachable offense.
OK, SMARTY PANTS, WHAT DO YOU THINK?
It seems clear that the FF intended that this country not be taken into war except by a declaration from Congress. Just because the United States can defeat a sovereign, foreign, military power with normal military assets and not by committing the entire nation’s resources to sacrifice is beside the point. The President can defend against sudden attack on his own but not go to war.
By this measure, all these should have had an official declaration of war: Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, Iraq twice, Afghanistan, and now Libya.
The wild card is: what if the President goes to war on the offensive, gets the support of the citizens, but not get an official declaration of war, but later gets some sort of administrative bill from Congress? This seems to be an end around the Constitution, but, to my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never ruled on this, but there is certainly no lack of opinion on the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment