-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
John, I hate to be so disagreeable that I disagree even about the nub of our disagreement but here’s what I see as the central question: Did the people who wrote and more importantly ratified the Constitution intend to confer upon the president the power to launch wars and initiate major non-defensive military action without congressional approval? My argument throughout this debate has been that they did not and that the evidence to the contrary is so thin that people who support lots of wars — Max Boot, for example — are forced to inflate various skirmishes to make it appear as though their views on presidential war-making have been the historical norm.
That said, the Rivkin/Casey op-ed does at least attempt to make an originalist argument. The authors seriously grapple with what the Framers were trying to do and don’t just cherry-pick favorable quotes or breathe magical meaning into random phrases in the Constitution. The consensus the Founders arrived at was that they wanted to avoid having one man who could take the country to war and easy war-making more generally while stopping short of denying the president the power to defend the country in circumstances where Congress would be too slow to act. That does create some gray areas and times when the president’s need for congressional authorization won’t be so clear-cut. But the existence of those gray areas doesn’t obviate the general principle any more than the existence of some legitimate hard cases means we must therefore support elective abortion on demand.
A case where the U.S. is attacking a country that our own government does not claim had any plans to attack us, in a situation where there was no imminent risk to the American people and where ample time existed to consult Congress, and where the intervention is not consistent with any agreed upon policy that was already in place is not a gray area. It is a textbook example of when congressional authorization is required. Whatever else the Founding Fathers may have meant by “commander-in-chief,” they clearly did not intend for the military to be the president’s personal army for doing whatever good deeds he chooses to perform throughout the world. The Rubio resolution would at least be a constitutional mechanism for pursuing an unwise policy.
View all comments (11) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/04/01/parting-war-powers-thoughts
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
JP| 4.1.11 @ 12:01PM
We have fought and lost every major non-declared war since 1950. Yes, I know we defeated Saddam in 1991; but, having to go back and revisit a "war" in my book is a loss.
War declarations have a way of focusing an entire nation's will and resources towards winning conflict. Until an opponent offers a surrender that the Senate can ratify, the war continues. We are not finished in Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Those operations continue to this day.
The Progressives ideal of "limited and managed conflict" has cost thousands of Americans thier lives. Mark my words, Lybia is far from over. And despite the President's announcement that our air assets will cease bombing Lybia, our not so covert ground operation will continue. The President's ego demands it.
LiveFreeOrDie| 4.1.11 @ 12:13PM
Mr. Antle,
Excellent! You've captured what it all boils down to in my opinion.
Truth to Power| 4.1.11 @ 12:48PM
Great job Mr. Antle.
Wayne | 4.1.11 @ 2:23PM
Not a scholar, but common sense would say that the Founders wanted to decentralize power. So they would not give the highest power - starting a war to one person. Just makes no sense and would contradict the balance of power. Obama has shown with ObamaWar that Congress is not even needed. He can call or war or an emergency and do anything he chooses. But where is any of that in the constitution?
Oldefarte| 4.1.11 @ 4:34PM
It's simple, presidents can wage war or any other military action [as COMMANDER] BUT congress must ADVISE & CONSENT to same with their approval. If a president's actions are illegal, unwarranted, immoral, or the reverse; congress has a constitutional duty to declare either YEA or NEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dixie Pixie| 4.1.11 @ 4:36PM
The bottom line is the Us Constitution a "Living Breathing Document" that the President can interpret any way he chooses.
Or is it a iron-clad contract who's terms must be obeyed to the letter and spirit of the US Constitution.
If it is the first then any President can deploy military force anywhere, anytime short of "Total War".
If it is the latter, then the President must defer to Congress and ask its permission to utilize the military in combat operations.
simon templar| 4.1.11 @ 4:38PM
Exactly! So, we have presidents who ignore the constitution and do what they please and also ignore the War Powers Act created to clarify this issue. Maybe we can amend the constitution with very detailed specifics and they can ignore that as well. Or better yet, why don't we just burn the damn thing and get rid of it and make him our new socialist dictator. O'Donnell and Matthews will then get all tingly and the rest of us can go play with our X-boxes.
Dixie Pixie| 4.1.11 @ 9:40PM
Greetings Simon
Maybe Obama's plan is to lock the US Constitution in the same vault with his birth certificate and school records.
That way he can take the British path and claim he is following the US Unwritten Constitution as he interprets it.
That way no more unwanted rulings from the Judiciary or Congress to cramp his style of government!!!!
If true, God help us all.
BD57| 4.1.11 @ 10:18PM
James -
FWIW - and I know, "not much!!!" - I agree with your last paragraph in its entirety.
There ARE grey areas, but Obama isn't in one.
Habu| 4.3.11 @ 12:11PM
Mr. Antle,
A truly pitiful job in understanding the untent of the Founding Fathers and their thoughts on the what was known as the "energy " of the Executive Branch in responding to events that would otherwise be endlessly debated while (in this case) hostilities continues apace.
Your conclusions are totally diaphanous, contain none of the thinking and debate at the time of the Constitutional formation and are simply pitiful.
I will as you what I have asked others which is simple a current scenario of what the FF thought.
If a call comes to the President at 3 A.M. regarding an attack on US forces somewhere in the world does he act or does he ask Congress to deabte it over the coming weeks? Additionally if he is not permitted to initiate war then why does he , and he alone, have the nuclear codes to launch an attack? In your view he should be escorted by at minimum the Speaker of the House and consult prior to any action.
Your argument is risible.
Morgan| 4.3.11 @ 9:13PM
Generally speaking the framers intended to create an inefficient government, one in which the executive had very limited scope in which to act without at least the "advice and consent" of Congress.
Beyond the general delegation of the war power to Congress, nothing is said about it. So yes, we can all agree that there are situations in which the Executive can, should, must have the power to commit our troops to "hostilities". I would also say that generally those situations are correctly articulated in Section 2 of the War Powers Act.
That the President as Commander in Chief has the exclusive power to direct the armed forces in time of war does not in any way mean that he has an exclusive power to initiate war. The powers involved are distinct notwithstanding the tendency since WWII to conflate them.