Iraq & The Looming Constitutional Crisis
There have been two constitutional crises in my lifetime – a Vietnam era debate over whether the president can unilaterally declare war and the Watergate scandal. The table is now being set for a third over President Bush’s refusal to bow to the American people and a Congressional majority on his Iraq war policy.
The republic survived the first two crises.
In the first, which was a legacy of President Johnson bypassing Congress to take the U.S. to war in Vietnam, Congress put restrictions on a president’s ability to unilaterally declare war, although only after Johnson had left office and it overrode a Nixon veto.
President Nixon himself defused the second by resigning rather than face impeachment for orchestrating an extralegal power grab that included a White House dirty tricks team, refusing to hand over evidence to Congress and, in twin echoes of current scandals, politicalization of the Justice Department and misuse of executive privilege.
Not unlike these crises, the focal point of the forthcoming one is an implacable president who seems to welcome a confrontation with a congressional majority that has the support of most Americans, in this case on finding a way to end the Iraq war sooner rather than later.
The stage has been set for this crisis because the Democrats in both House and Senate have managed to overcome ideological infighting and forge a consensus.
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.
17 Responses to “Iraq & The Looming Constitutional Crisis”
How is this a Constitutional Crisis?
Congress has passed a law in both Houses
and, after conference will send it to the President.
The President then has the right to veto that law.
Congress can override the veto with a 2/3 majority in both Houses.
That is Article I , Sec. 7 of the Constitution.
It has nothing to do with ones opinion of the Law,
it simply is the Constitution.
Are you suggesting we change the Constitution
to suit the present desires of the electorate?
cfpete:
I will grant you that crises are in the eyes of beholder.
In my view, this is a classic showdown over whether Congress can limit the president’s war powers legislatively and whether the president can curb Congress’s efforts to limit those powers.
Consensus? How is blatant bribery to gain votes “consensus?”
The constitutional crisis here is that Congress is attempting to manage the war which is clearly an executive responsibility. Congress has a right to withdraw funding and cancel the AUMF to end the war – both actions are clearly within Congress’ mandate – but the Democrats don’t do that. Why? The answer, of course, is that they don’t have the votes, but more important than that, they don’t want any responsibility for anything that happens in the war. I agree with Thomas Sowell here:
The Constitutional crisis, if there is any at all, is Democratic meddling in the executive’s roll as Commander in Chief and failing to do their duty, stand up, and go on record supporting the repeal of the AUMF and defund the war.
Entropy:
By golly, you’ve hit on something huge. This war thingie is really complicated. (Just ask the folks in Tal Afar about that.)
There comes a point when the executive’s malfeasance — in this case the conduct of a Iraq war now in its fifth year with no end in sight and in LBJ’s case his unilateral declaration of war in Vietnam — must be addressed.
We have reached that point. Now. Today. Right now.
Bellyaching about the consequences of a withdrawal before the entire country is in ruins, pork for California spinach farmers, ulterior political motives and all of the other stuff that Bush sycophants are throwing on the fire are mere distractions.
Shaun,
Fine. I’m not saying being against the war is bad, or evil, or unamerican – it’s a completely valid viewpoint. The problem I have is that those in Congress are not willing to end the war in way consistent with their constitutional powers – by defunding it or repealing the AUMF. Why aren’t they willing to do that? Why aren’t they fighting to have that vote?
The answer is, of course, is they don’t want to pay the political price that legitimate course of action would cost. It’s easier for them to pass nonbinding resolutions and measures that encroach on executive power by attempting to manage the war. It’s cynical, dishonest and cowardly.
I can respect those who are against the war, who think we need to pull out now. That’s a completely valid position, but those with that position should support ending it using Congressional power to do, not bleeding it dry in an obviously cynical political strategy.
In short, stand up for your principles and support the repeal of the AUMF and defunding the war altogether.
Someone forgot to tell Joe Biden that Congressional AUMF’s isn’t a Constitutional declaration of war.
It was Truman who first sent US soldiers to Vietnam, and JFK who first escalated them. Johnson asked for and got a legal “declaration of war” for all Constitutional purposes with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was rescinded by Congress in 1971 when we were already drawing down troops. No Constitutional crisis. No President yet has failed to assert that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is an encroachment of executive branch powers, and no Congress or White House has yet pushed the issue.
Nor was Nixon’s resignation a “Constitutional crisis.” He asserted executive privilege, SCOTUS ruled against him in particulars (namely that executive privilege is not a bar against providing evidence in a criminal investigation, as compared to a political one) and he handed over the evidence and resigned. Had he refused to had over the evidence in the face of the SCOTUS ruling, THAT would have been a Constitutional crisis.
You’re dead wrong on the law, Shaun. Congress did indeed authorize the Iraq invasion using their declaratory war authority. There’s no “Constitutional crisis” there, only the inability and/or unwillingness of the Democratic caucus to take a stand and either rescind the AUMF or defund the war. “Brave Sir Robin” chickens**ts.
Entropy:
Your upset over Congress not following Roberts Rules of Order or whatever is a great example of the kind of distractions I just addressed.
As it is, the pending House and Senate bills concern attaching strings to supplemental appropriations, and if that ain’t a form of defunding I don’t know what is.
Face facts: The war will not end on your terms. Nor on mine, for that matter. But it has to end.
While I agree with Entropy I also don’t see how conditional funding isn’t constitutional. I’m not sure how explicit the terminology is in the bill, I can see why saying “You must move the troops here” is unconstitutional but not “If the goals aren’t met then funding will be cut off.”
The fact is that even though they might be acting cynical, dishonest and cowardly they can’t actually end the war with the votes they have. I think holding the President’s feet to the fire and making him meet his own goals (where progress is reported by him afterall) is actually a pretty good thing. It’ll keep the focus on the stated goals and rationale for being there instead of letting our objectives slip completely into rhetoric based on Friedman units of time (the next six months are important and then we’ll be around the bend).
The democrats in congress along with their Republican allies should vote on a binding resolution. They should force the president to come home. NOW.
Why don’t they? It is very simple. To do so would be political suicide if the middle east goes up in flames after we leave. I am not saying it would but IF it did. They would be held accountable and be out of power for the next 12 years (For providing evidence they are clueless when it comes to foreign policy and national defense)while the Republicans cleaned up their mess.
It is politics pure and simple. It is Nancy Pelosi and company playing mind games with Americans. If they had real guts they would vote on Binding resolutions. They would revoke the war powers act. They would do what they are blustering about doing instead of screaming at the top of their lungs in public while in private hanging out with their buds and drinking a “beer” and planning their next “Wool over the eyes strategy.”
Instead they are playing mind games with American voters. Making it look as if they are doing something but in the end doing nothing.
Right now, I don’t care why people are doing what they do. Things that end this war faster are good. Things that prolong it are bad.
It’s that simple.
Tully:
So by your reckoning the only way the war can end on terms other than the president’s is for Congress to unauthorize the invaison. But where’s that going to leave California’s spinach farmers?
Mikkel,
If the resolution said, “If troops are not out of Iraq by X date, then Congress declares that all funding for those troops will end on that date.” that would be fine – a clear call to defund the war. But the resolution says nothing of the sort:
For those still in denial about what the AUMF says, here are the appropriate passages:
Thanks I was too busy to look it up….but yes I can see why that’s shady. They should have at least said funding would end.
Also I’m glad that the AUMF is as specific as it should be. Congress does need to rescind an AUMF immediately — the Afghanistan one. Have you ever read that? “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
It’s so vague that it gives him nearly unlimited leeway. They need to strike this down and issue a specific resolution for operating in Afghanistan only.
I agree about the Afghan resolution. I think Congress should give more specific authorization related to Afghanistan and then a more limited authorization for AQ/terrorists in general. But that’s a fantasy – Congress is only interested in political expediency.
In other words, the current situation is a crisis of political will, not a Constitutional crisis. The Constitution holds up just fine, but the individuals sworn to uphold it would rather run an end run around it than risk the political fallout of doing it the correct way and then having to take responsibility for the ensuing events.
And here I was, hearing “Constitutional Crisis” and expecting something about Habeus Corpus, authorized torture against citizens, and Bush telling Congress that executive priveledge covers whatever he damn well says it does.
All I know is the public 2/3rds of which are wanting us out of Iraq by the end of the year. I think congress, and our self apppinted monarch better start listening, or maybe we are going to have to send all those R’s and D’s both not caring to listen back to private citizenship when their next elections come up.