-
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
With all due respect John, I think it is you who is interpreting the Constitution like a liberal. When you argue that defending U.S. territory against Indian tribes is equivalent to invading and occupying countries halfway around the world, it reminds me of the liberal wive’s tale that President John Adams imposed the first individual mandate. When you cite jet travel and instantaneous communications as reasons to “update” the Constitution to cover the international frontier, I see shades of the “living Constitution” and “evolving standards of decency.”
The Constitution lists the enumerated powers of all three branches of the federal government. The federal government has no power that is not delegated to it by the states and the people, and ratification is the process by which those powers are delegated. The people of the Founding era who come closest to this expansive view of presidential war powers were not the Federalists. It was the Anti-Federalists who opposed ratification and feared the Constitution created too powerful a central government. Quite frankly, the Constitution probably would not have been ratified if the Federalists argued it authorized the presidential war powers John is claiming. Where is the evidence the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution intended to give the president such sweeping war powers?
What we have instead of this evidence is an attempt to minimize an enumerated power — Congress’ power to declare war — and read unenumerated powers into the commander-in-chief title. Where have I seen this method of constitutional interpretation before? “The president has express constitutional authority to initiate or wage war,” John writes, without referencing the Constitution’s text, the Constitutional Convention or the ratification debates. So where’s this constitutional authority expressed?
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/04/07/constitutional-questions-have
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
ADVERTISEMENT
J.P. Freire | 4.7.11 @ 2:57PM
More to your point -- even the Federalists who wanted broader authority for the president preferred to use the constitutional amendment process -- they didn't just want to usurp that authority.
John - TMF| 4.7.11 @ 4:46PM
Again... The President of the United States has THREE offices vested upon him.
1. Head of State of the sovereign nation of the United States of America. This is not the Parliamentary version of the Head of State. This is the functioning Plenary power head of state.
2. The President is the Commander in Chief of the United States. (this is the supreme military rank, but also forms the civilian command structure of the US military.) It is not a salutary position. It is a real position of real power, especially coupled with the President's power as the Head of State.
3. The President is the Chief Executive of the Federal Government, and therefore responsible for the execution, implementation, and administration of the laws of this nation.
Only the 3rd office is wholly covered by the Constitution, which is only a government, not a sovereign foundation of the nation state.
As Head of State and Commander in Chief, the President has broad powers for dealing with international relations both friendly and "not so friendly".
There are incremental checks on that power from the other branches. Specifically the power of the purse, raising/equipping armed forces, and the full commitment of national resources to formal war. There is the treaty ratification power of the US Senate. (This power is limited, the President has the power to sign any Plenary agreement and abide by it through Executive order without having a breath of authorization from the Senate.)
Given the above separate and combined powers, the limit of Plenary congressional power is a very vaguely worded power to declare war. (There is nothing formal beyond that power in the Constitution... anywhere... no form, format, meaning, substance, legislative demand or requirement... nothing. Just the vague power to declare war, petunia, frolic and dancing... whatever.) The court fights have been eternal, and many. The results mostly seem to side with the CinC/Head of State, and limit the Congress.
Of course to sustain any sort of battle campaign, a President is wise and well advised to involve Congress, because the one massive power that Congress does have over the waging of war.
It is the actual real power that congress has in funding an Army (Navy - Air Force -Marines, etc) and its operations. Congress does have the power to leave the commander in chief out on a limb without troops or supplies.
Ultimately the President if the United States is constrained by the ballot box. He must stand for re-election every four years. The Plenary power comes from the people, and it can be removed by the people. (and now the limit of two consecutive terms imposed by the Constitution).
History and the courts say the the President has the power to pick a fight, support an ally with troops according to treaties, etc.. As much as I cannot stand the sound of him, the current occupant of the White House is perfectly within his power to drop bombs on Libya... or any other nation that he so chooses.
And Congress can choose to cut him off at the knees and force him to pilfer whatever money that he can scrape up to sustain the effort.
The Constitution was written to be difficult to get things done, not easy. It is a government after all, not a nation, and certainly not a suicide pact. (Though with the election of OBummer I am beginning to have my doubts about the suicide pact.)
236 years of history says Guardiano is correct.
Regards,
The Mighty Fahvaag
(The United States Army was established by an act of the 2nd Continental Congress on June 14, 1775. On June 19th of that year George Washington took command. )
L. E. Powers| 4.7.11 @ 4:59PM
Control of the military is shared. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, can direct where it goes and what operations it undertakes. That power is not unlimited, rather it is limited by the Congress's willingness to pay for the adventures of the President. The Banana Wars are an example of this. The Marine Corps was used under the pretense of the Monroe Doctrine to keep foreign interests from building a competing canal in Nicaragua and to put down other insurrections in the Caribbean and Central America. No war was declared, but a judgement made by several Presidents that our interests were at stake. Congress acquiesced, permitting the expeditions. The Mexican Expedition could be considered yet another example from that period.
I do agree with you, Jim, that all of the powers of the federal government are limited and enumerated. There are also checks and balances. The President controls the armed forces, that is an enumerated power. He also controls foreign policy; an enumerated power. Both are checked by Congress, because they decide whether to finance what the President proposes to do.
And that is where politics enters into it.
Bruce Anderson | 4.7.11 @ 5:20PM
This is an Outline of a hand written Monroe County Indiana City of Bloomington Government Tort Claim
Filed on 01-04-2011,
Press Release:
Updates will be made
Updates will be made on
FaceBook,
on January 01- Day 04 2011, a $33 million Dollar Tort Claim to Suit City of Bloomington Monroe County Indiana Elected & Appointed for Direct Constitutional Contempt. For the Unconstitutional Restraint of 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech & Redress of Grievance. Taxation without representation is tyranny! So Out lined in the rules of Public Comment So passed & unconstitutionally upheld.
Views In Question to be Challenged Rules of Public Comment Rule Number 5, Rule Number 1. Rule Number 2 Out lined below!
http://bloomington.in.gov/medi.....f/7507.pdf
In the this tort Claim Notes was made to address the Treasonous views of the city of Bloomington Indiana to insight We the people backs a boy cot of Arizona's right of self defense to secure the unsecured
Borders,to Hault the Action of Known threat to ward off threats to Legal Americans! They Held no Town Hall back In may 17 2010 before as such!
I sigh the Gibbons v. Ogden 9 Wheaton 1 1824 case,
It has been said that they were sovereign, {“The States”} were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a “League”!
The federal system was to be voluntary unless a war was so being fought on “United Soil” to pay for again the Common defense to protect the United States or the Common “League” in form of the National defense leads by the executive Branch of Government common defense League. From threats!
{Gibbons V. Ogden} 9 Wheaton 1 (1824). Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall, Upholds Only Congress can regulate Inter States Commerce
Open Meetings Laws in Indiana
Open Meetings Laws in Indiana
http://www.citmedialaw.org/leg.....ws-indiana
Laws Sighted: {United States Title 42 United States Code Section 1983} & the International Maritime Jurisdiction
Claim Number And Call information
Donna Carmichael: Travelers Insurance {1-800-842-6172} EXT 4236 Claim Number {CES7402}
Mayor Kruzan , Isabel Piedmont Smith President district V rep, Andy Ruff Vice President , Parliamentarian district 3 Rep. Mike Satterfield, At-Large Rep. Tim Mayer, At- Large Rep. Susan Sandberg , District 1 Rep Chris Sturbaum, District Rep IV. Dave Rollo , District Rep VI. Steve Volm, City Clerk Regina Moore, and The Mayors Lawyers should be disbarred for backing such.
They Should be Voted and or suited out for not seeking to get the vote of we the people before Acting to sight “ We The People” The “League “ Boycott Arizona, I mean come on at least a Town Hall meeting
Quartermaster| 4.7.11 @ 6:45PM
"236 years of history says Guardiano is correct."
Hardly. Simply producing some examples of what you are talking about shows nothing. We can also see where the politicians have disregarded the constitution in those same incidents and failed to do their duty, if we were actually threatened and needed to go to war (Congress), or to go to war without an expressed declaration of war. Alas, for your case, even Hamilton disagreed with you.
The entire reason Levin has made a laughing stock of himself is this question. Woods challenged him to come up with any quote from the founders that supported his, and your, contention that the President had the power to take us to war. Levin tucked tail and ran. He said he "moving on," but everyone with any knowledge of the political history of this country knows why he is "moving on." He's too much a of a poltroon to stand admit he made a mistake.
While the President has the power to deploy troops and defend the country if we are attacked, he has no power to commit an act of war without a declaration of war by congress. He can repel and invasion (a duty of the office), but he can not shift over to offensive operations without an expressed authorization. Defensive operations, such as repelling invasion does not entail an act of war. An act of war entails the direct interference with the sovereignty of another country, such as we are doing in Libya right now. What Obama is doing is patently illegal. And that, my young friend, is from the founders, not 150 years of Lincolnian lawlessness.
Sean| 4.7.11 @ 7:24PM
Antle you are correct. The Commander in Chief under our Constitution does not have the power to initiate wars. As that power is reserved to Congress. A declaration of war is an offensive action. Our founders did not want the President to be able to initiate wars like the European monarchs were able to do. The President as Commander in Chief would carry out the war after Congress declares.
John - TMF| 4.7.11 @ 11:36PM
A. I am not young... too much gray to be young.
B. 236 years.. several hundred engagements, and less than 1 dozen actual declarations of war... because there are no "official" declarations of war. Nothing.. no guidance, no process, no form, nothing.
Over reading the Constitution is like Biblical fundamentalism. It gets to the point where the word "the" his holy writ because it appears the most. However, it misses the point of the entire work.
Not everything is war, and your definition of defense, and the President's in this dangerous world where the globe can be spanned by city destroying weapons in less time than it takes to say Mass.
The US Marines.. and the Shores of Tripoli - the first time - disagree. The Civil War disagrees... the American Indians certainly disagree, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama... all of it perfectly legal. (Contrary to neo-isolationist belief, Korea, Viet Nam, Kosovo -though a tad late-, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq were all authorized by Congress.)
Just 'cause you want it to be so, don't make it so.
Regards,
The Mighty Fahvaag
(Abraham Lincoln was probably the greatest President. He was most certainly the greatest of the 19th and 20th Centuries, and his understanding of the roles of Commander in Chief and Head of State saved this nation, and yes changed it, for the better.)
John - TMF| 4.7.11 @ 11:42PM
The paragraph (I got the CTRL-C's and V's crossed up...):
Not everything is war, and your definition of defense, and the President's in this dangerous world where the globe can be spanned by city destroying weapons in less time than it takes to say Mass.
Should read:
Not everything is war, and your definition of defense and the President's, in this dangerous world where the globe can be spanned by city destroying weapons in less time than it takes to say Mass, might just differ. That's why Presidents of this Republic are elected... to take those decisions.
Peace, Love, and Bobby Sherman...
TMF
nik | 4.8.11 @ 4:22AM
thanks all of you, i learn you idea
Red Phillips | 4.8.11 @ 8:47AM
TMF, the comparison to Biblical interpretation is an instructive one, but you get it backwards. Good Constitutuional interpretation is like good Biblical interpretation, it attempts to get at the intent of the authors in the former case and the Author in the latter case. The intent of the authors of the Constitution in this case is clear. If it wasn't, you would actually quote some of them to support your case. The executive suprmacy folks are like the guy who is engaged in something that is obviously a sin, but isn't directly addressed in the Bible. So he resorts to hair splitting literalism of the type "But the Bible doesn't specifically say..." But the intent of the guy's heart is not to understand the will of God, it is to justify his behavior that he doesn't want to give up.
Executive supremacy war hawks don't won't to give up running an empire and policing the world so that look for loop holes in the Constitution. This is not constitutionalism and it is not originalism and they should be ashamed for pretending it is. It is desperately seeking Constitutional justification for a course they have already predetermined to be necessary.
A. C. Santore| 4.8.11 @ 9:24AM
The Constitution is a marvel of clear and concrete language, written by men whose command of language was well beyond those of contemporary legislators and presidents — most of them having been skilled in the classical languages.
Article II, Section 8, lays out in exquisite and detailed language the powers that Congress has in relation to the military. These powers are distinct, and are presented as distinct: to provide for the common defense, to raise and support Armies, to provide and maintain a Navy, to make rules for the Governance and Regulation of the land and naval Forces, to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions, and to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, etc.
Separate and distinct from all of those is “to declare War,” and the sophistry of anti-Constitutionalists aside, that is crystal clear.
The President, on the other hand, has the following power [singular], as laid out in Article III: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.
That’s it.
He cannot even nominate and appoint officers of the United States military without the advice and consent of the Senate.
But I must force myself to remember that we are living in the new age of unprecedented destruction of the Constitution and replacement by a proto-dictatorship.
CalMark| 4.8.11 @ 2:40PM
The President has the right to commit U.S. forces whenever and wherever he pleases, as Commander in Chief.
However, Congress has the right to deny him funds for operations, or in extreme cases, impeach/try/remove him.
Teddy Roosevelt sent the Great White Fleet to the other side of the world. If Congress doesn't like it, he said, they can cut off funds and strand the fleet there. Dirty pool politically, but Constitutionally valid.
Red Phillips | 4.8.11 @ 7:36PM
"The President has the right to commit U.S. forces whenever and wherever he pleases, as Commander in Chief."
CalMark, you can't just assert that. The executive supremacy side's argument is all one big assertion. You have to back that up with some quotes from the Founders, some debate from the Constitutional Convention, some text from the Federalist Papers, etc. Check back with me when you have some evidence. Thanks.