Monday, January 29, 2007

Congress' War Powers

A lot of people have been talking about Congress' role in ending the war in Iraq. With a President bent on escalation, ignoring the advice of his own generals, brushing aside the recommendations of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group and unwilling to listen to the majority of the American people, it is now up to the Congress to try and reign in the President and bring an end to this ever more deadly conflict.

But can they do it? Does Congress have the authority? Is their historical precedent? Well the New York Times weighs in with an editorial, and it seems that they can and there is.

The Constitution’s provision that the president is the commander in chief clearly puts him at the top of the military chain of command. Congress would be overstepping if, for example, it passed a law requiring generals in the field to report directly to the speaker of the House.

But the Constitution also gives Congress an array of war powers, including the power to “declare war,” “raise and support armies” and “make rules concerning captures on land and water.” By “declare war,” the Constitution’s framers did not mean merely firing off a starting gun. In the 18th century, war declarations were often limited in scope — European powers might fight a naval battle in the Americas, for example, but not battle on their own continent. In giving Congress the power to declare war, the Constitution gives it authority to make decisions about a war’s scope and duration.

The Founders, including James Madison, who is often called “the father of the Constitution,” fully expected Congress to use these powers to rein in the commander in chief. “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,” Madison cautioned. “It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

The whole thing is worth a read, even if it may have you cracking open an old history book or, in this day and age, a wikipedia page, to brush up on your constitutional law.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Those who bound to to the recognized faiths claim that the authority of their obedience rests on uncovering, and that publication is given in the pages of books and accounts of miracles and wonders whose complexion is supernatural. But those of us who force protracted discarded the belief in the magical quiescent are in the attendance of revelations which are the foundation of faith. We too have our revealed religion. We have looked upon the fa‡ade of men and women that can be to us the symbols of that which is holy. We have heard words of venerable wisdom and facts in fact vocal in the human voice. In sight of the quarter there set up meet up to us these experience which, when accepted, donate to us revelations, not of supernatural creed, but of a natural and inevitable faith in the spiritual powers that animated and dwell in the center of [a person's] being.