| James N. Markels | ||||
|
|
Personal
Information Constitutionalist
Party Political/Policy
Writing Creative
Writing Resume |
by
James N. Markels According to White House counsel Alberto Gonzales (on the short list to become a Supreme Court Justice, should an opening appear), the president’s power as commander in chief is in itself enough authority for Bush to use the military to invade another nation. Barring that, he cites Congress’ resolution after 9/11 to allow military force to combat terrorism, and he goes back as far as Congress’ authorization of force against Iraq in 1991 as still being applicable today. And let’s face it, America hasn’t declared war on anyone since World War II, yet we openly acknowledge the Gulf War, Vietnam War, and Korean War—and don’t forget Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and so on. We’ve been letting presidents wage war under the table for decades, so why stop now? Here’s why: the act of war by a republic against another nation has too many consequences—to the soldiers committed and the citizens at home—to be left to the discretion of one person. This may not apply in communism or a dictatorship—where no one cares what the people think—but in our republic, with its representative government, the interests of the citizenry are important to how the nation is run, and we have a system of checks and balances that does its best to realize and protect those interests. The Founding Fathers realized this when they gave the bickering Congress sole power to declare and finance war while giving the president control over the armed forces. Speed and decisiveness of action are virtues when leading an army, while debate and calm reasoning are virtues for whether to engage in war. Rash wars and ponderous armies fail. By putting these powers in the separate branches that had the qualities best fitting their use, the best interests of citizens would be preserved. Let’s say that Gonzales is right in saying that being commander in chief is enough for Bush to send troops into any other nation he likes. At the very least, the act of militarily invading another country is an act of war, at which point the other nation will defend itself in the field. Of what use is Congress’ power to declare war, then? It becomes a mere formality—a trivia question, if you will. We’re already at war. All Congress would be doing is catching up to reality. If Congress can’t stop the invasion in the first place, then the real decision on war has been co-opted by the presidency. In a way, Congress in the War Powers Act of 1973 formalized this concession by allowing the president to do pretty much whatever he wants with the military for ninety days before requiring some consultation or a report of some kind. This was meant to prevent future Vietnams, but it is easy to see how Congress could find itself without many options when the president starts a conflict that isn’t all sewn up by deadline. How realistic is it for Congress to shut the whole thing down? “Gee, sorry our guy went all ballistic on you with our military, there. Here, have some McDonald’s franchises!” Not likely. Or should Congress keep money from the operation, thereby endangering the lives of the soldiers in the field? Considering those soldiers have parents who vote back home, that’s not likely either. Congress has lost the initiative in the matter. But the worst thing is, this is how Congress wants it. Apparently, declaring war is more responsibility than our elected officials can bear. Instead, they grant the president total discretional authority over the use of force and allow themselves to merely sign the checks for conducting war, letting the president accept the blame when things go badly (like in Vietnam) while fluffing their own feathers when we win (like in the Gulf War). They can’t lose. But we, the people, do. We lose because our country can now be sent to war with another nation without debate or a national consensus of any kind. We lose because while that war is going on we will have our income taken to finance it and our civil liberties curtailed. We lose because we’re the ones fighting and dying in that war while our home soil is made subject to retaliation. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “We have already given in example one effectual check to the Dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.” Now that makes sense. Congress is not free to delegate this authority to another branch of government, and indeed to do that here would dangerously weaken an important check on the presidency. No matter whether it is Congress’ job to keep war in check or the judiciary’s job to make sure they do, we can already see that presidents aren’t about to say no when given free reign. |
||
