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.
lotta words just to be wrong
They lack the authority to tell the president how to run the war. They have the authority to defund it. That is it.
Well, duh. You needed to write this big, long, worthless article to tell us that?
Nothing new here. The issue is that they don’t have the balls to do it, so they try to do it behind the scenes. They end up costing more lives that way but try to look like their hands are clean. Bunch of maggots.
One problem
The Congress never declared war.
They gave authority to the President to use military force.
So....I guess they want to stop the “military force?” Wonder what the difference is between “war” and “military force?” HMMMMMMMM
They can recind the authority, but that requires 2/3 vote to overcome a veto.
digger nailed it.
Had Congress declared war, they could end it. By the measure of the Constitution, this is not a ‘war.’
They don't lack the authority. They lack the votes. If they could override a veto, they could also pass laws to control how the war is waged or not waged. As it stands now, the only veto-proof way they can end it is by refusing to fund it. And the only way they can regulate is via the threat of defunding.
No, they could not. The constitution is clear.
“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.”
The congress does have the authority, however, that whole “provide for the common defense” thing kinda trumps it though.
“And the Constitution is clear.
The Congress can start – and end – wars. “
Hopefully with victory as the goal.
The authority to declare war is explicit in the Constitution. The second part of '...ending a war...' is not mentioned.
If this 'power' is implicit, that is the readers interpretation; the Constitution grants no such authority.
The Constitution should not be subject to such subjective conclusions. If so, anyone could read into the 'General Welfare' clause anything they wanted to, rendering the U.S. Constitution a worthless piece of paper.
End.
The democRATS have absolutely no clue how to extricate the U.S. from Iraq, short of tossing in the towel.
Bush tried to do two things at the start of the war and they were both wrong. One was to do it on the cheap, and the second was to minimize the collateral damage to the civilian populations.
If Bubba had gone into Iraq it would have been heralded as a great success and the crowing achievement of his administration.
Blogs of this nature shouldn’t be allowed since they are just opinion and better than outright vanities only because they come from outside, that is, from where experts come from. The farther outside the more expert.
I guess someone should tell the Japanese that document they signed on the deck of Missouri didn't really count. Apparently it ain't really over until the fat lady sings in the Capital Rotunda.
Tommy Franks plan was fantastic. It was when State got in their with Bremmer and Co that shit started going sideways. Every war has its problems. These are passing too.
He’s President George, not King George.
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.