Iraq War: US Congress’s Powers Beyond the Purse
Today’s Op-Ed Page in The New York Times states that ‘the sound-bite arguments’ are hijacking the debate that the United State’s Congress needs to have about the Iraq war.
“Defenders of President Bush concede that Congress has ‘the power of the purse’ and insist it could use it to completely ‘cut off the funds to the troops.’ But that, most of them say, is the only power Congress has to change the course of the war.
“They then insinuate that exercising this power would be an unspeakable act of disloyalty to our soldiers, leaving them without supplies, ammunition or pay. Congress is thus placed in a box: it has a single awesome power that it would never employ.
“There are at least three errors in this line of argument. First, Congress is hardly limited to this seemingly magical power of the purse. It has several sources of constitutional authority over the use of military force, including the express right ‘to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.’
To read more please click here…
opinions powered by SendLove.to
2 Responses to “Iraq War: US Congress’s Powers Beyond the Purse”
There are a number of interesting points about this op-ed.
Consider the opening line: “THE debate that Congress needs to have about the Iraq war is being hijacked by sound-bite arguments.”
The “sound-bite” arguments that the professors are refering to here are, of course, the arguments of those who claim that the Executive has dominant authority over military deployments, and that Congress is limited to the power of the purse.
The authors here are part of the group of liberals who have recently been developing arguments that state Congress has tactical level authority over military deployment in the field. This has been widely debated.
It is interesting, however, to note how the professors frame this debate: their learned academic wisdom versus supporters of Bush who practice “sound-bite arguments”.
There is no indication here that this is a field of complex debate in constitutional law extending back centuries. The professors suggest this is a prima facie example of Congressional authority when it is nothing such…and the courts are notoriously loathe to interfere in these power struggles. The fact that the authors have to resort to the 1799 case is evidence of how rarely the courts have addressed such struggles.
The professors’ (or the NYT’s editors) attempt to frame the debate in the opening line as a debate between wise legal academics and “sound-bite” Bush supporters…with the assumption that this is a clear and unquestionable case of constitutional law (when, in fact, it is a complex and long-standing legal debate)…is evidence of the political bias of the op-ed.
This is a bit OT, but I read an article about Alberto Gonzales yesterday that stated that he originally had told Bush that he had unlimited power as a CIC to fight the war on terror, and did not even need Congress’ approval for the original invasion of Iraq. The AG’s assertion was based on an opinion by John Yoo.
Its interesting to note how each branch claims to be more or less powerful when it suits their purposes. The issue of executive power is subject to interpretation and has varied with the occupant of the WH, the Congress in power and whether or not we are at war.