On The Constitution and Military Action
Ask ten random people who has the power within the U.S. Constitution to declare war, and I would predict the following results. One would say, "What Constitution?", two would say "Congress", three would say "The President", and the rest would say "Charlie Sheen". Just kidding (sort of). The Libyan mess has brought up the issue of who actually has the power within our society to initiate military action. Thanks to my tutor, Judge Andrew Napolitano (whom you can see on Fox News Business every night at 8:00pm or 11:00pm), and spending a few minutes reading the Constitution I have a much better understanding of this answer.
The Constitution addresses the concept of war in two parts; one directly the other indirectly. For the direct language we have Article I, Section 8 which specifically says that Congress has the sole authority to declare war. Now, I'm no genius, but I don't think the Founders wanted any deviation from this very basic edict. Unless exigent circumstances exist (such as an invasion or some kind of surprise attack) a state of war can only exist if Congress so declares. End of story, right? Not so fast....
Modern thinking has vastly strengthened the power of the Presidency in this area. The indirect route taken by these thinkers cite Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution where The President is named the Commander and Chief of the military. In their view, this title grants the President the power of a monarch. He can use the military where he sees fit regardless of the situation. I have no idea where this view came from or how it is so easily justified by our leaders (enabled by our silence and "support the troops" rah-rah), but it is almost as if they simply ignore the Constitution as if it's irrelevant.
In an effort to curb the power of the President regarding the use of military force Congress passed what is known as the War Powers Resolution in 1973. In short, the War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of initiating military action, and such action can only last a maximum of 60 days without congressional approval (or a declaration of war). The constitutionality of this resolution is dubious at best, even among supporters of limiting presidential power, and all Presidents basically ignore the intent of the Resolution; effectively neutering it's supposed check on military adventurism.
After President Obama's address to the nation last night it is clear we are heading towards a constitutional crisis in regards to the use of military force against sovereign nations. Obama basically said that where massacres of a population COULD occur the United States can intervene militarily to prevent this future tragedy. The authority to commit the United States to such a military exercise comes from the President's own hubris, and completely removes Congress from the equation. In the case of Libya, Obama has justified his actions because the United Nations Security Council gave him the go ahead. Since when has the United Nations Security Council superseded our own Congress? Finally, in an act of ultimate hypocrisy,
then-Senator Obama said on the floor of the Senate that he believed Bush the Younger's invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional. This fact alone shows the utter contempt our leaders hold not only for the Constitution, but for us, as well.
Even though it may seem as if the Constitution is beyond saving there is hope. Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) have banded together with Democrats like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to stand up to this trouncing of our beloved republic. Whether they are successful depends on us. Take a look at your Representative or Senator's stand on this insanity. If they are being a good lemming and jumping off the cliff because the pied piper said so, then maybe it's time for that person to be retired.
Our country is not a dictatorship, monarchy, or military junta. While throwing despots like Gaddafi and Hussein into the category of Lucifer with our right hand, with our left we do business with repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and China who are in the exact same category. Worse, our President has assumed for himself the power of a dictator while at the same time destroying his enemy for assuming that same power for himself. It is a wrong that cannot stand in a country that claims, "In God we Trust".
George Washington, the first President, knew that he could not assume the powers of a King even though the whole country was ready to anoint him as such. The genius of our form of government is that our Founding Fathers understood history; that for every Julius Caesar, there is a Nero; that for every Peter the Great, there is an Ivan the Terrible. We cannot put our fate in the hands of one person; it is the surest way to tyranny ever devised, and the greatest con in history.
3 comments:
You discussed this a heck of a lot better than my con law textbook, which left me thinking, "huh?" Totally agree with your assertions.
Ha. Yes, those Con Law books are no fun at all. Napolitano would be one heck of a good teacher, though.
Love the Judge!
Post a Comment