Constitutional Crisis in the Making
This is an excellent explanation of what the Congress can do to slow down or stop, King George II and Dick (The Penguin) Cheney in their continuing war effort. What I don’t understand is why the neo-cons are continually to disregard the explicit ideals of the founding fathers with regards to the constitution.
The three branches have been successful in governing this country for 200 or so years. When one branch attempts to usurp too much power, it is the responsibility of the other branches to step in, and bring the balance of power back to level. It is time that Congress take back their powers and put the executive branch back in its place, for today and tomorrow.
Stopping the War by Constitutional Law by John Nichols.
The document is clear in its language: “The Congress shall have the power… To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…”
If that makes it sound as if control over matters military was placed squarely in the hands of the House and Senate, then the founders succeeded in communicating their intent. James Madison and the other authors of the Constitution were exceptionally blunt about their hope that the president would serve as a mere commander-in-chief, implementing the directions of the Congress with regard to the targets or military actions, the characters of those actions and their durations.
The founders bluntly stated their fears about executive excess in a time of military conflict. “War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement,” warned Madison, who explained that, “In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasuries are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venal love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.”
The Constitution was written “to chain the dogs of war” by founders who believed it essential that the endeavor be “run by committee” — with the legislative branch fully empowered to check and balance the ambition, the avarice and the vanity of the executive.
Only in the spin-driven politics of the post-9/11 era could Cheney and Bush continue to peddle their fantasies about executive supremacy and an imperial presidency. They have taken advantage, masterfully at some points, brutally at others, of an on-bended-knee Washington press corps and a spineless Congress to control the dialogue and the direction of the country for more than four years. And, in so doing, they have sunk the nation deeper and deeper into the quagmire that is Iraq and the disaster that is their approach to a world that no longer trusts or even understands the actions of the United States.
Cheney and Bush have gotten away with a lot. But they have not succeeded in erasing the Constitution.
On January 30, the primacy of the essential document was reasserted, as Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold chaired a full Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the topic of “Exercising Congress’s Constitutional Power to End a War.”
“Congress holds the power of the purse and if the President continues to advance his failed Iraq policy, we have the responsibility to use that power to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq,” says Feingold, a Democrat who also chairs the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution. “This hearing will help inform my colleagues and the public about Congress’s power to end a war and how that power has been used in the past.”
“I will soon be introducing legislation to use the power of the purse to end what is clearly one of the greatest mistakes in the history of our nation’s foreign policy,” explained Feingold, who in recent weeks has emerged as the most ardent advocate for using the power of the purse to force a shift in administration policy.
When that legislation is introduced, there will be those who suggest that Feingold and his allies are moving the country toward a “Constitutional crisis” — with Congress demanding the redeployment of troops from Iraq and Bush refusing.
In fact, the crisis has already occurred. The executive branch is operating far outside the limits of the authority afforded it by the Constitution.
Congress has not only the power but the responsibility to restore the system of checks and balances, and with it an appropriate regard for the founding document of a great yet threatened republic.
A place where I can rant about anything under the sun, leave a legacy for my children to read about my political beliefs when they are older & wiser and kindly request that you comment on what you read then provide me with your own take or opinion of the subject at hand. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. | More from Jeff Herz
Stumble It!
January 31st, 2007 at 8:33 am
They also have the power to impeach and they had better do it or the states themselves should impeach the entire lot of them.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:47 am
I have mixed feelings on impeachment, since it has historically been used by the republicans more as a political tool rather than a constitutional tool as original intended.
I do think if Sen. Leahy’s intellingence committee does find hard evidence that this administration knew differently than what they were telling the public and the Congress, then the House should begin to open impeachment proceedings. This to me seems potentially to be more of an major issue then lying about a blowjob. I am still of the same opinion today, that I was last month, when I wrote here (http://herzy69.blogspot.com/2006/12/privacy-impeachment-democratic-agenda.html) that the Dems have much to accomplish to prove to the electorate that they are interested in working across the aisle for the good of the country.
I saw let the Senate investigations and hearings proceed, and let the House proceed with their plan. The process, unfortunately, is slow but I would rather be sure that there is enough evidence to convict this liar, and send him and Mr. Cheney on their way. Wow, that would make Pelosi the President?