Posted on 05/01/2007 3:37:49 PM PDT by Ouderkirk
Actually, they do have the right to do it.
The Democrats in Congress, they can tell the commander in chief to end the war.
They’d be stupid to do it, and they’d be helping our enemies and hurting our troops, but the Constitution gives them the right.
This is one of those times when principles overrule politics, when rooting for your team is less important than standing for your country. And standing for your country involves honoring and following the Constitution.
Here’s the background.
In what is probably nothing more than a stunt to help their chances in 2008, the Democrats in the House and Senate have tied a big funding bill for the war to mandatory pull-out dates. The Democrats are saying, in effect, we want the war to be over and the troops to be home by such-and-such a date.
Again, it’s stupid. It rewards terrorists and religious lunatics and threatens to move the war with terror back to the American homeland. There is absolutely no logical benefit that comes from announcing to your enemy the day you’re going to quit.
But that’s what the Democrats want to do. In my book, that makes Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi imbeciles, and their policy is almost traitorous.
And I’m glad to argue against that policy all day long. I can’t, however, go along with some of my fellow Republicans – and talk-show hosts – who say the Congress lacks the authority to set a pullout date. Repeatedly, the president’s powers as commander in chief are cited and the effort to end the war in Iraq is seen as a violation of that constitutional authority.
That argument doesn’t hold water.
This pains me to say, but on the matter of constitutional authority, the Democrats are clearly right. The Congress does have the power to end the war, and not just by cutting off money.
Like I said, this pains me to say, because I fear the Democrats’ fixation with the war has nothing to do with a concern with what’s best for our country, or a desire to protect the troops. Rather, it is an effort to curry favor with their anti-war, anti-America, anti-Bush constituents. I honestly believe that the Democrats would sell us down the river in a heartbeat if it would help them get the White House in 2008.
But the Constitution is the Constitution. And the Democrats hold majorities in the House and the Senate by fairly and freely winning more elections than the Republicans. That does give them a representative prerogative and in areas where they can gather a majority of votes, they have the authority to legislate in a lawful matter.
Including ending the war.
Let’s look at the Constitution.
First, the powers of the president. According to Article II Section 2, “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” That means, simply stated, that the president has the authority to command the armed forces.
But that is distinct from starting a war. That seems clear from Article I Section 8, which says, “The Congress shall have power … to declare war.”
The president can command it, but only the Congress can declare it. And why is that? Because the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that the presidency didn’t become tyrannical, and to assure that those who would pay for a war with their taxes and their blood – the people – would have a say in whether or not they were thrown into war. The Congress is the people’s branch of government and if the people are going to have to fight, the Founding Fathers wanted it to be with the people’s OK.
So the president can’t start a war, but the Congress can.
And if the Congress can begin a war, it can also end a war. The principle in the Constitution is that the people get to decide if they want to be in a fight. And that is as true about the end of a war as it is about the beginning of a war.
If the people, through the Congress, can decide when they want the country to go to war, they can also decide when they want the war to end.
That conclusion is unavoidable.
Only the Congress can begin or end a war. And if the view of a majority in the Congress is that the people have tired of a war, Congress is completely within its authority to seek and command an end to hostilities.
The only trick is getting the enemy to go along with it.
Of course, while the Constitution empowers the Congress, in the current situation it also empowers the president. The Congress can act to end the war – as it essentially has – but the president can veto the effort. Then the Congress can vote again and try to override the veto. If it succeeds, the war is over. If it does not, the war continues.
It’s sometimes an ugly process, and sometimes it empowers people who are not being particularly bright. But following the Constitution is always the right thing to do, it is a fundamental duty of every American.
And the Constitution is clear.
The Congress can start – and end – wars.
Even if it is controlled by knucklehead Democrats.
And the constitution lays out who the CIC is very clearly. Congress can declare war and advise and defund. They cannot manage the troops.
I have not heard anyone say that Congress has not the authority to require an end to the war. It is politically motivated and extremely unwise and that has been said.
Yes, that is a BIG problem! How in the world is it right for this country to invade another country, kill the leadership and occupy its cities without being attacked and without the congress declaring war? Congress was grossly derelict in its duty; it sniveled out of its responsibility by passing a "resolution" allowing the president to decide whether or not to invade Iraq. It is still demonstrating its incompetence by trying to influence improperly when and how we leave Iraq.
This Iraq fiasco is damaging our country big time and both the president and the congress bear responsibility. The most important question here is how did this happen. Our political system has been incredibly corrupted by money from special interest groups and the people have lost power. We have a government which is of the money, by the money and for the money. And, I can tell you first hand, this war is being waged the same way.
But there is no textual support for this in the Constitution, which seems like kind of an important detail.
The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to declare war, but nowhere is it written that Congress has the power to end war. Words to this effect aren't in the Constitution, because the framers didn't put them there.
The principle in the Constitution is that the people get to decide if they want to be in a fight. And that is as true about the end of a war as it is about the beginning of a war.
So in the absence of text the writer cites a principle, as expressed above. But the guys who wrote the Constitution probably had another principle in mind, namely that a fickle public and a fickle legislature shouldn't be able to easily end a war that's underway, and therefore shouldn't be given an easy legislative method of pulling the plug on it.
Note however that they didn't totally deprive the Congress of the power to end a war. Clearly they didn't want Congress and the people to be powerless. Instead they made it politically difficult -- by forcing Congress to starve a war rather than killing it quickly.
The elegance of this, the thoughtful balancing of powers achieved in this approach is just so totally Founding Fathers that I have to think this what they had in mind. A declaration to start the war and purse strings to end it.
Iraq fiasco? Is that you, Murtha?
Bump!
No where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to “end a war.” Just because Congress has the power to “declare war” doesn’t infer that they can end it. Once again we have someone writing some thing into the Constitution that isn’t there.
However, that's pretty much irrelevant, as we were simply enforcing the terms of a cease fire that had been breached by almost every day with attacks on our military and other conditions. That's generally considered risky for a defeated regime that has only been allowed to stay in power as long as they strictly adhere to the terms of the cease fire.
There was no need to declare a new war that I can see, and I'm not convinced the President needed permission from congress to escalate hostilities in an ongoing military campaign.
It's my opinion that many have confused Bush's courtesies toward an unappreciative left wing for some duty, or law, that was not neccesarily owed and has yet to be defined.
Why would you declare war on a country you are already at war with?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.