Congress' War Powers
Posted by on January 29, 2007 at 01:35 PM
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.
Comments (10) «
Congress has the authority, but do they have the balls?
Russ Feingold has been trying to get his colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to grow a pair and stop being intimidated. He says it far better than I do. Here Listen.
"This Committee did not rise to the Occasion."
Thank You for posting this!Thank You Sen. Feingold! The following is a very good history lesson.I wish we had a video of this.
In an address given October 12, 2001, to the Associated Press Managing Editors Conference at the Milwaukee Art Museum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Sen. Feingold (D-Wis) explained why he, alone among United States Senators, voted against the Administration-sponsored “U.S.A. Patriot” Act. The text below followed his introductory remarks.http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm
Posted by diana on January 29, 2007 at 03:53 PM
Awesome Post on Feingold. Thank you. I wish it was in video/audio too. Oh well, it's still quite powerful.
:)
Hillary Clinton did say this,
“If we had known then what we know today there would been no vote for war in Iraq!”
Interesting.
If that's her excuse for voting for this war, then how can she explain THIS?
Senator Russell D. Feingold (D-Wi) voted against the Authorizing of the Iraq War.
Snip:
We are about to make one of the weightiest decisions of our time within a context of confused justifications and vague proposals. We are urged, Mr. President, to get on board and bring the American people with us, but we don't know where the ship is sailing.
On Monday night, the President said in Cincinnati, "We refuse to live in fear." I agree, but let us not overreact or get tricked or get trapped out of fear either.
Sen. Russ Feingold: (Breaking Another Iraq Taboo)
Russ Feingold posted a Blog on the Huffington Post about Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War. (Specifically, the war in Iraq)
Snip:
I want everyone to be clear on exactly what my proposal will do. The first and most important thing to know is that my plan does not cut funding for the troops. Our troops will continue to receive the salaries, equipment, training and protection they need. What I am proposing is ending funds for the continued deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after the enactment of the bill. This will require the President to safely redeploy troops from Iraq by that date. My bill does provide exceptions to allow for specific types of military missions within Iraq past the six-month deadline, such as targeted counter-terrorism efforts, the protection of American personnel and infrastructure, and a limited number of troops needed to help train Iraqi security forces. But these will be limited forces used for specific missions.
Suggestions that our troops will be left in the lurch couldn't be further from the truth. My proposal would bring the troops out of harm's way.
To Read The rest in it's entirety, please visit the Huffington Post. While you are at it, take a moment to post a comment thatnking Russ for all he's doing on behalf of the American people.
Congress has the authority to overule the Commander in Chief during times of war. This precident was set by the First Continental Congress and our first Commander in Chief, George Washington. There were, in fact, many times at which Washington would have plundged headlong into disaster had it not been for the oversight of Congress. Washington though, unlike Bush, knew this and respected the role they were to play in this democratic society.
Cut off the damn funds, bring the National Guard home, and get Osama Bin Laden- NOW!
Maybe someone can explain to me the 1973 War Powers Act and why no one is mentioning it?
We can't wait two years to end this war. Not even the Republicans could stand for that.
Okay if that right is given to you by law, why in gods name are you all taking so long to enforce it !!!!
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
