Posted on 11/19/2001 7:59:49 PM PST by Pokey78
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the war in Afghanistan have dramatically accelerated a push by the Bush administration to strengthen presidential powers, giving President Bush a dominance over American government exceeding that of other post-Watergate presidents and rivaling even Franklin D. Roosevelt's command.
On a wide variety of fronts, the administration has moved to seize power that it has shared with other branches of government. In foreign policy, Bush announced vast cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal but resisted putting the cuts in a treaty -- thereby averting a Senate ratification vote. In domestic policy, the administration proposed reorganizing the Immigration and Naturalization Service without the congressional action lawmakers sought. And in legal policy, the administration seized the judiciary's power as Bush signed an order allowing terrorists to be tried in military tribunals.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
So far, America has had a reasonably good record of reverting to less executive-dominant methods of governance between wars.
Congress did not declare war. However, their authorization can be seen constitutionally. They have authorized a reprisal. Since a reprisal constitutes authorizing a military response to a specific situation, then within the confines of that authorization, Bush has war powers.
Actually, it is more due to your poor education and ignorance of history.
Despite what the article states, FDR did NOT create military tribunals. CONGRESS did in the articles of war passed when WAR was DECLARED. FDR merely executed what Congress legislated. (see 10 USC 1471 - 1593, repealed)
No President has siezed the Legislative and Judicial branches as has Bush. None. Bush has explicitly done away with the right of habeus corpus. He has explicitly violated Article III of the Constitution.
He should be impeached.
Have at it. Just don't be surprised to have your head handed to you.
Do you even know what a letter of Marque and Reprisal is?!
Congres has not authorized any marque and reprisal. Are you out of your mind?
Indeed, Congress is prohibited from doing so by treaties entered into during the Hague Conference.
Do you always make crap up and post it to the internet? Or, is it only when you are defending tyrants for whom you voted?
I was referring to the President's actual influence on the government, not his theoretical powers, which change little in time of war. Few would argue that FDR's influence on legislation, for instance, did not increase dramatically after 12/7/41.
The Congress, with only a single vote against, gave Mr. Bush the functional equivalent of a declaration of war against whomever Mr. Bush chooses to wage it. I think this was a mistake, but it was a mistake on the part of Congress.
Letter of marque and reprisal are terms with very specific meanings. The sort-of declaration of war Congress passed doesn't address either of them.
Reprisal essentially allows an American shipowner who has lost a ship to French (for instance) action to confiscate a French ship in retaliation. The theory is that it all gets sorted out after the war is over.
Not very applicable to today's situation.
That aside, both letters of marque and reprisal are archaic forms used in the Constition's 18th century world. However, they had an intent. The intent of a reprisal is actually fairly easy to determine. The definition of the word "reprisal" is the same as it was at the time of the Founders.
Bush could easily argue that he'd been constitutionally authorized to retaliate (reprisal) to a specific situation using military force.
From a constitutional dictionary: Reprisal Archaic. An act taken by a nation, short of war, to gain redress for an action taken against that nation. For example, seizing a ship in retaliation for a seized ship.
Not necessarily limited to ship-for-ship retaliation.
No need to argue anything. The constitution only requires that congress approve military action in a time of war. The constitution is silent on how that declaration must be written. The Joint Resolution was and is all this president requires to fully exercise his powers as a war time CIC. Every thing he has done to date in this operation is as the Commander In Chief of the armed forces NOT, as president.
Even Osama's supposed massive fortune, if completely confiscated, would not begin to pay for the financial losses alone.
One can only imagine the incredible legal conflucts over who gets what.
With all due respect, you are an ignoramus.
You have no idea what you are talking about. None. Your ignorance exceeds all comprehension. The Constitution was written, in part, to keep people like you from ever obtaining any position of authority. In light of the fact that you are oblivious to the 200+ year history of the concept of LIBERTY and FREEDOM, it is not surprising that you know nothing of the 500+ year history of the term "Marque and Reprisal". Quit trying to be an armchair attorney. It's painful to watch.
The Constitution specifically allows for the right of habeus corpus to be suspended "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" - and the military tribunals are directed at terrorists acting domestically - the presence of Al Queda cells in this country is technically a form of invasion. Bush's actions are Constitutional and will be upheld as such by the courts.
I wonder if Dana Milbank expressed such concerns about Clinton's abuse of Executive Orders. Somehow I doubt it.
Does the concept of "SEPERATION OF POWERS" mean anything to Freepers?!
Only CONGRESS can do away with the writ! Not the President. You are quoting from Article I of the Constituion, for crying out loud.
Repeat after me:
The LEGISLATURE makes laws.
The JUDICIARY resolves disputes.
The EXECUTIVE enforces the laws.
The ignorance of even the most basic constituional principles displayed on this forum is apalling.
This country is ripe for a dictator.
Why would that make a difference?
Does Dana Milbank's hypocrisy excuse your hypocrisy?
Freepers called for impeachment (rightfully so) over Clinton's perjury. What if Clinton had signed this EO? What would you have said then?
Oh, I am quite aware of basic constitutional principles. And quit being so abusive in your replies. In addition to the Constitution, we also have precedent - namely Licoln's action during the Civil War - and the courts will look back to that action and uphold what Bush is doing now.
BTW, we already had a dictator - chap by the name of Clinton - and in wartime Presidents assume more power. And each time, after the war is over, the power reverts back. Even the Constitution acknowledges that concept.
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.