Controlling troop movement
The next time someone tells you what the Congress is going to do about the war, be sure to point them to this Washington Post article.
"Just as there are constraints on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief, there are limits on Congress's ability to direct presidential action. In particular, Congress cannot use its power of the purse to micromanage the president's execution of his office. Indeed, although the prosecution of the Iraq war looms large in today's political discourse, the consequences of substantive decisions related to the war are dwarfed by the imperatives of protecting the integrity of the core rules governing interactions between the executive and legislative branches, which are rooted in our distinctive constitutional fabric."
Oh sure, the Senior Senator from Massachuesettes may SAY that the Legislative branch will bring our troops home or otherwise decide troop movement, but the Constitution says something else entirely.
"This constitutional fabric features two coordinate political branches, with unique responsibilities and independent legitimacies. Thus, even if one assumes that, as critics allege, the November election results were a call for disengaging from Iraq, efforts by some congressional Democrats to chastise the president through a resolution of "no confidence" in his Iraq policy have no place in our constitutional culture. The Framers did not establish a parliamentary system." (emphasis mine)
That is not to say that there is nothing that the Legislative Branch can do.
"This does not mean, of course, that Congress is powerless. It could -- if the leadership mustered veto-proof majorities -- immediately cut off funding for U.S. operations in Iraq. Alternatively, Congress could refuse to pass new appropriations once the current ones expire. The refusal to pay for particular policies -- whether in war or peace -- has been the most important check on executive power in the Anglo-American political tradition, dating to the British Parliament's ancient insistence on the right to seek redress of grievances before voting supplies (i.e., money) to the monarch."
However, removing the funding (for the war) is not a guarantee that the troops would come home. Plus, removing funding for the basics that our soldiers need (food, clothing, ammunition, body armor) is political suicide. The American people may have soured on the war, but they are not going to stand by while the troops are left with inadequate body armour - as the Bush Administration saw early on in the war effort!
The Legislature also has judicial precedent going against it.
"To maintain the integrity of this original design, the Supreme Court has long ruled, in such cases as United States v. Klein (1872) and United States v. Lovett (1946), that Congress cannot attach unconstitutional conditions to otherwise proper legislation, including spending bills. As explained by Professor Walter Dellinger -- President Bill Clinton's chief constitutional lawyer at the Justice Department -- "[b]road as Congress' spending power undoubtedly is, it is clear that Congress may not deploy it to accomplish unconstitutional ends." This includes restricting the president's authority as commander in chief to direct the movement of U.S. armed forces. In that regard, Dellinger quoted Justice Robert Jackson -- who said while serving as President Franklin Roosevelt's attorney general: "The President's responsibility as Commander-in-Chief embraces the authority to command and direct the armed forces in their immediate movements and operations, designed to protect the security and effectuate the defense of the United States." (emphasis again mine)
So the anti-war crowd can scream all it wants, demand all it wants, and protest all it wants but in the end there is nothing that Amy Klobuchar or Keith Ellison (or RT Ryback for that matter) can do to bring our troops home. While it may make a good sound byte and it may make you feel good to here them say they can and will do something, the Constitution trumps whatever their plans may be.
"Just as there are constraints on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief, there are limits on Congress's ability to direct presidential action. In particular, Congress cannot use its power of the purse to micromanage the president's execution of his office. Indeed, although the prosecution of the Iraq war looms large in today's political discourse, the consequences of substantive decisions related to the war are dwarfed by the imperatives of protecting the integrity of the core rules governing interactions between the executive and legislative branches, which are rooted in our distinctive constitutional fabric."
Oh sure, the Senior Senator from Massachuesettes may SAY that the Legislative branch will bring our troops home or otherwise decide troop movement, but the Constitution says something else entirely.
"This constitutional fabric features two coordinate political branches, with unique responsibilities and independent legitimacies. Thus, even if one assumes that, as critics allege, the November election results were a call for disengaging from Iraq, efforts by some congressional Democrats to chastise the president through a resolution of "no confidence" in his Iraq policy have no place in our constitutional culture. The Framers did not establish a parliamentary system." (emphasis mine)
That is not to say that there is nothing that the Legislative Branch can do.
"This does not mean, of course, that Congress is powerless. It could -- if the leadership mustered veto-proof majorities -- immediately cut off funding for U.S. operations in Iraq. Alternatively, Congress could refuse to pass new appropriations once the current ones expire. The refusal to pay for particular policies -- whether in war or peace -- has been the most important check on executive power in the Anglo-American political tradition, dating to the British Parliament's ancient insistence on the right to seek redress of grievances before voting supplies (i.e., money) to the monarch."
However, removing the funding (for the war) is not a guarantee that the troops would come home. Plus, removing funding for the basics that our soldiers need (food, clothing, ammunition, body armor) is political suicide. The American people may have soured on the war, but they are not going to stand by while the troops are left with inadequate body armour - as the Bush Administration saw early on in the war effort!
The Legislature also has judicial precedent going against it.
"To maintain the integrity of this original design, the Supreme Court has long ruled, in such cases as United States v. Klein (1872) and United States v. Lovett (1946), that Congress cannot attach unconstitutional conditions to otherwise proper legislation, including spending bills. As explained by Professor Walter Dellinger -- President Bill Clinton's chief constitutional lawyer at the Justice Department -- "[b]road as Congress' spending power undoubtedly is, it is clear that Congress may not deploy it to accomplish unconstitutional ends." This includes restricting the president's authority as commander in chief to direct the movement of U.S. armed forces. In that regard, Dellinger quoted Justice Robert Jackson -- who said while serving as President Franklin Roosevelt's attorney general: "The President's responsibility as Commander-in-Chief embraces the authority to command and direct the armed forces in their immediate movements and operations, designed to protect the security and effectuate the defense of the United States." (emphasis again mine)
So the anti-war crowd can scream all it wants, demand all it wants, and protest all it wants but in the end there is nothing that Amy Klobuchar or Keith Ellison (or RT Ryback for that matter) can do to bring our troops home. While it may make a good sound byte and it may make you feel good to here them say they can and will do something, the Constitution trumps whatever their plans may be.
posted by The Lady Logician at
3:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home