How Many Divisions Has the House?
In discussing the question of the distribution of war powers in the United States, this colulmn from George Will throughly misses the point.
Will writes of various means by which the Congress might cut off funding or otherwise attempt to stop or prevent a war and then says that, "All this refutes Rudy Giuliani's recent suggestion that the president might have "the inherent authority to support the troops" even if funding were cut off."
I don't deny that, in a legal and strictly constitutional sense, that Will might well be right - but the question here is not, and has never been, one strictly of law. In an 1861 address to the Congress, Abraham Lincoln asked, "are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?"
The Constitution and the laws are not a suicide pact.
Will - and others - seem to willfully ignore the core question, insofar as any Congressional effort to force an American surrender or otherwise cripple the defense of the United States is concerned. Put simply - how many divisions has the House?
Mark Steyn has earlier discussed the concept of a "cold Civil War" - and a closely related question, one which I have posed in the past, is whether there is a serious danger of that cold war becoming a hot one. This would seem to be one such method. In seeking to force an American defeat in Iraq - or elsewhere in the world - the Democrats in Congress would be provoking a Constitutional crisis. They have no way to force the President to obey their will if the President correctly chooses to ignore orders and decrees which would result in the defeat and humilation of country he is sworn to defend.
Indeed, looking at the approval ratings of the Congress, the more historically-minded members ought to reflect that even the Long Parliament was probably more popular at the end of its days.
Will writes of various means by which the Congress might cut off funding or otherwise attempt to stop or prevent a war and then says that, "All this refutes Rudy Giuliani's recent suggestion that the president might have "the inherent authority to support the troops" even if funding were cut off."
I don't deny that, in a legal and strictly constitutional sense, that Will might well be right - but the question here is not, and has never been, one strictly of law. In an 1861 address to the Congress, Abraham Lincoln asked, "are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?"
The Constitution and the laws are not a suicide pact.
Will - and others - seem to willfully ignore the core question, insofar as any Congressional effort to force an American surrender or otherwise cripple the defense of the United States is concerned. Put simply - how many divisions has the House?
Mark Steyn has earlier discussed the concept of a "cold Civil War" - and a closely related question, one which I have posed in the past, is whether there is a serious danger of that cold war becoming a hot one. This would seem to be one such method. In seeking to force an American defeat in Iraq - or elsewhere in the world - the Democrats in Congress would be provoking a Constitutional crisis. They have no way to force the President to obey their will if the President correctly chooses to ignore orders and decrees which would result in the defeat and humilation of country he is sworn to defend.
Indeed, looking at the approval ratings of the Congress, the more historically-minded members ought to reflect that even the Long Parliament was probably more popular at the end of its days.
posted by Adam Yoshida at
9:29 PM
2 Comments:
These Copperheads will go the way of Lincoln's Copperheads.
They will slink off into the night when victory looks like a strong possibility. As it does.
You sound like one of those guys who hits his wife and then blames her for "making" him do it.
If George Bush breaks the law, it's because he chose to break it. If Congress cuts off the money for the war, that should be it. You notice I said "should." That's because this president has no respect for the law, the Constitution or anything else beyond his own wants and needs.
When a president swears into office, he takes an oath th "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
It doesn't say, "I swear to see to it that we win every war we get into."
His job is to follow and uphold the Constitution--above all else.
Congress is within its rights to cut off the money, and more than half of Americans want this war to end. We don't think there is any way to win it anymore, and we're just throwing away more lives so those who have died "won't have died in vain," as the right wingers love to put it.
Now we might well be wrong. Maybe we can still win. Maybe losing this war will bring about the downfall of the U.S. You're free to believe that and free to argue that, but in this country, the will of the people should ultimately go heeded--as long as it is not unconstitutional.
The president doesn't understand what his job is and he never has. He looks at the Constitution like it's a piece of trash blowing down the street, and not worth another look.
He's wrong. The Constitution is what makes this country what it is. It's what has made us different and special throughout our history, because it kept us looking forward and upward, it's what has kept us from being content from saying, "Well, they do it, too!" to otrture and such abominations. It's what has kept us understanding that if we put anybody--ANYBODY--above the law, then we're done as a free country.
George Bush, and people like you, would put people above the law. Even if George Bush were the greatest lead er the world has ever seen and the most super awesome kickass amazing president ever--which he most patently is not--I still wouldn't want him to be above the law, above the Constitution, since he'll be gone someday, but the precedents he sets will live on after him.
I want the Constitution to be up and running when my daughter is 100; I don't want this country to slide into some kind of cheap dictatorship. We've already taken a few of the first halting steps down that sorry path, but, thankfully, there's still time to turn back.
Bush and you and people like you make the one big mistake that authoritarians often make: you believe that there's an indespensible man. There isn't. Not one of us is indispensible, not Giuliani and certainly not Bush.
This can still be a country of laws and not men. Since you aren't even an American--so I assume--I'd thank you not to presume to tell us to toss what has made us what we are for more than 200 years into the trash just because you're scared.
Post a Comment
<< Home