Congress cannot tell the President how to conduct the war

[EvanB]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I would like to see congress hobble the executive though. The president (and all those who will serve in the future) need to be taught that they are merely figureheads, and are under the total authority of the people, by way of the legislative branch.

Can you show me that part of the Constitution? I must have missed where it said that Congress is supreme.

With regards to allowing military action, yes. War is supposed to be declared by Congress, and only by Congress.

Furthermore our government is supposed to be somewhat of a democracy (democratic republic at least) which means that the people are not ruled by the government officials they elect: those officials serve the will (and at the whim) of the people.

There is no question that the executive has massively expanded its powers in the twentieth century...far beyond what was envisioned/intended. That was never supposed to happen since an overly strong executive (a king) is what the colonies were rebelling against. That's why I say they need hobbling.

Executive power (or latitude imo) has been on the slow increase since Washington was sworn in. Even Jefferson who was supposedly the paragon of traditional republican (notice the little r people) values wielded the power of the Executive in ways that seem to contradict his stated beliefs. The most extreme height it ever reached was with Lincoln in the Civil War, he was the closest thing to a dictator the US ever had in the office.

Congress however still has the purse strings just as they always have had. It is as powerful as it ever has been. They just seem to be willing to let the Executeve branch handle a lot of stuff they don't want to or are afraid to.

Another prime reason for mixed control is that Congress can't logistically handle all of the foreign policy load. That's why there are 40,000 people working in the State Dept.

 

[EvanB]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I would like to see congress hobble the executive though. The president (and all those who will serve in the future) need to be taught that they are merely figureheads, and are under the total authority of the people, by way of the legislative branch.

Just because the executive was intended to originally be weaker than it is now doesn't mean it needs hobbling. There are a lot of valid reasons the executive has been expanded in the 20th century. Especially during the Cold War, there was a need for agility in foreign policy that certainly couldn't be provided by the legislature. Things have changed quite a bit, but there are still many reasons the executive needs to be fairly empowered.

This isn't to say that the executive should have the power to make war. Small police actions sure, but not war.

Also, the statement that the executive wasn't intended to have any military authority whatsoever is somewhat incorrect. Its a fairly contentious topic, but the Framers understood that as the commander-in-chief, and head of the executive branch, the president would have responsibility to undertake foreign policy decisions and actions, one of which is coercion. Several made statements to this effect. If you are a rigid constitutionalist, you could argue that it is not expressly laid out in the constitution, but for all intents and purposes, there has always been an understanding that the executive has the power to deploy troops for minor police actions.

In practice, the legislature (for mostly obvious political reasons) does not check the power of the executive enough, in my opinion.

 

[EvanB]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think that is pretty much the way everyone in Washington views things.

Every President in recent memory operated under those guidelines.
The best the Democrats can do is try to cut funding for the war, but that would be a risky political move for them.

I am not even sure how well congress can control the war through its control of the purse. Bush could take money meant to be spent on other DoD expenses and use it in Iraq if he wanted. That would result in a big court case where both sides would fight over who controls what.

As someone else noted, there are a few congressional Acts that prohibit allocation of funds contrary to what the legislature decides. The Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 is a big one that says the executive may impound only if the legislature passes a rescission bill saying he may do so.

 

[bobdelt]

And you know the scope intended?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: EvanB

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I would like to see congress hobble the executive though. The president (and all those who will serve in the future) need to be taught that they are merely figureheads, and are under the total authority of the people, by way of the legislative branch.

Just because the executive was intended to originally be weaker than it is now doesn't mean it needs hobbling. There are a lot of valid reasons the executive has been expanded in the 20th century. Especially during the Cold War, there was a need for agility in foreign policy that certainly couldn't be provided by the legislature. Things have changed quite a bit, but there are still many reasons the executive needs to be fairly empowered.

This isn't to say that the executive should have the power to make war. Small police actions sure, but not war.

Also, the statement that the executive wasn't intended to have any military authority whatsoever is somewhat incorrect. Its a fairly contentious topic, but the Framers understood that as the commander-in-chief, and head of the executive branch, the president would have responsibility to undertake foreign policy decisions and actions, one of which is coercion. Several made statements to this effect. If you are a rigid constitutionalist, you could argue that it is not expressly laid out in the constitution, but for all intents and purposes, there has always been an understanding that the executive has the power to deploy troops for minor police actions.

In practice, the legislature (for mostly obvious political reasons) does not check the power of the executive enough, in my opinion.

Oh the executive is supposed to run it once declared, no question. The presidents position as cic is clearly laid out. But the legislature is supposed to decalre when he gets to do it, and by all logic should therefore have the power to call it quits. Remember too that there wasn't supposed to be a standing military. Not saying I entirely agree with that, but it supports the minimalist war structure that was invisioned, including congressional authority.

For the most part the executive didn't grab power, the legisative gave it away. Yes, that's the fault of congress and not the president, but the important thing is to correct it.

In my own opinion the major issue is secrecy. So long as the exeutive can act without the other branches finding out (or at least not knowing the whole story) it's too powerful. We need much more transparancy in government than we have today. Much, much, much more.

Of course, then there's the military industrial complex argument, the PNAC/special interest argument, the oil industry argument, etc. But that's all for another time.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: her209
Congress doesn't have the legal authority to tell the President how to deploy troops and how to conduct a war. The President is the Commander-In-Chief.

What Congress can do is rescind the authorization for war or not fund the war at all. Anything more should be considered unconstitutional.

Thoughts?

Thoughts? You're not bringing anything new. Nancy Pelosi said almost the same thing word for word the day after the elections.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
why can't they? there the ones who write the UCMJ and the constitution. if congress really felt the need they and the state legislatures could pass a constitutional amendment with a sunset provision revoking the executive branches control of the military. although this probably wouldn't be a very good political decision to say that they CAN'T do it just seems silly.

Yeah, good luck getting 2/3 of the states to ratify that.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Oh the executive is supposed to run it once declared, no question. The presidents position as cic is clearly laid out. But the legislature is supposed to decalre when he gets to do it, and by all logic should therefore have the power to call it quits. Remember too that there wasn't supposed to be a standing military. Not saying I entirely agree with that, but it supports the minimalist war structure that was invisioned, including congressional authority.

Their also wasn?t suppose to be a Social Security system, a Medicare and Medicaid system, welfare, department of education, EPA, Homeland security etc etc etc etc etc

We can go on forever about government programs that no one had ever dreamed of when our country was founded. The power of the President has grown because the power of the government has grown.

We can blame a LOT of the above on the words ?promote the general Welfare? being in the constitution since those words are the legal justification of most social welfare programs.

 

[Lemon law]

Right now there is a somewhat similar thread where Dennis Kucinich proposed impeaching the President if he just preemptively bombed Iran. About half the posts were about what a
far left wacho Kucinich is. But at the end of the day, will there be any choice? This lame thread is now about cutting funding, waiting for an incredibly slow supreme court, or similar slow boat to china methods to remind the President that he is not the entire US government. When the President can screw the pooch and get all of us involved with the collective guilt any time he diddy darn well feels like it.

So the real question becomes how can we that see this Iranian bombing coming head our President off at the pass and thereby prevent another brainfart of greater magnitude?
And tell GWB&co in no uncertain terms don't even think it---or a Dirty Harry---go ahead---make my day---reach for the attack button and I will blow you away---and do the paperwork later.

Because once the bombs start falling---there is no recalling them---and we all are in a heap of trobs.---and then the only possible remedy will then be the impeachment and conviction of GWB&co.---and turning his ass over to the Hague---or else we can say hello world wide depression. How can you restore economic stability thereafter?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Right now there is a somewhat similar thread where Dennis Kucinich proposed impeaching the President if he just preemptively bombed Iran. About half the posts were about what a far left wacho Kucinich is. But at the end of the day, will there be any choice? This lame thread is now about cutting funding, waiting for an incredibly slow supreme court, or similar slow boat to china methods to remind the President that he is not the entire US government. When the President can screw the pooch and get all of us involved with the collective guilt any time he diddy darn well feels like it.

The President was given authority by Congress to use force against Iraq. If they don't like the way Bush has conducted the war, they can withdraw the authorization and/or funding. They can't tell him he can't send more/less troops. They can't cap the number of soldiers he can put in Iraq. That a decision only the Commander-In-Chief is constitutionally afforded.