Event Calendar
February 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 * * *
<< (add event) >>


User Blox 4
- Put stuff here

Barack Obama
"Lincoln Sells Out Slaves"
by: Rob Kailey - Sep 13
1 Comments
If You Haven't Seen This
by: Rob Kailey - Apr 28
5 Comments
Impeach the President?
by: Rob Kailey - Mar 16
15 Comments
It's the system, stupid!
by: Jay Stevens - Oct 25
7 Comments

Search




Advanced Search


Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.

The Judy Martz President and War Power Theories

by: V

Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 11:54:55 AM MST


I got some response from the post from a few days ago, calling the legislative out to take back the war powers rightfully theirs.  The main question I got was how does Congress do such a thing? Is there anything that Congress can do?  Yesterday Joe Biden told Secretary Rice that if President Bush went into Iraq that it would "generate a constitutional confrontation in the Senate."  This is good to hear.

For some good background detail, check out Greenwald on the subject.  He is basically saying that there is no question that President Bush and company believe that they have total constitutional power.  He uses the logically-challenged Yoo Memo to solidly prove his point.  Make sure you check out his Update III, with a terrifying back and forth between Tony Snow and Chris Matthews about war with Iran.  One thing he doesn't do in this post is advise Congress on stopping the President's poor assumptions (he may in his book, or in another post, but I am not sure).

V :: The Judy Martz President and War Power Theories

Congress can take back their power in a lot of ways.  The biggest step as indicated before, is to get a lot more ballsy about their confrontation with the executive over this power.  I think that Kennedy's bill to strengthen the power of the purse is a helluva start.

One way to think about constitutional law and the Constitution itself is as interpreted by all three branches and not just the judiciary.  The Supreme Court only decides around 75 cases per year, and not all of them even deal with constitutionality.  Moreover, jurists have devised a doctrine, Political Question Doctrine, to avoid deciding questions which are thought to rest more firmly in  another branch's perview.  It is this doctrine that this administration has taken advantage of so fully.  They consider the executive to be the only organ of military and foreign policy. 

The constitution is not so clear on the matter.  While the executive is called the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, it is clear that the war powers were certainly ones that the founders thought should be divided.  Thus, the power to declare war rests with the Senate, the power to fund wars rests with the House, and questions of basic rights of combatants can be decided by the lower courts and the Supreme Court in many circumstances.

The executive is not the only branch that can and should think expansively about power.  The legislative should not pander to the will of the executive in any way.  They should be bull-headed and jealous about their roles in using our military arm.  If they are not they have failed to provide the tension among branches, which no one will deny is constitutionally prescribed.  This notion is butressed by the fact that military responses should be last resorts, and so it is no problem that the use of force should be distributed and hard to access.

The executive is a major organ in military and foreign policy, but a competant President uses that power in diplomatic ways.  A competant President listens to our old allies when considering the use of force.  Mark Shields' response to the President's address two nights ago  pointed out that nearly everything which the European allies, who would not join in the military venture in Iraq, predicted has come true.  Civil War.  Quagmire.  Military disaster.  Pretty sobering stuff.

In this age, the legislative is bogged down by the struggle between parties, but as we are beginning to see, they have a common cause against the executive.  Unsurprisingly, the President is dropping in popularity to around 32% today.  Perhaps that will provide the impetus to change more hard Republicans minds about this nightmare executive power.

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Impeachment is back on the table. (0.00 / 0)
If Bush continues this dictatoresque direction, I have no doubt that the Democratic pledge to avoid impeachment procedings will be null and void.  There are enough moderate Republicans to make it a real possibility, with Spector and Olympia Snowe leading the way.  In response to Matt's recent post, I'm afraid there is only so much that Appropriations can do.  I was as against impeachment as anybody, but we're already getting stuff done and the President is clearly out of control.  He thinks that he answers to no one, but you know what?  He does and if he tries to widen the war, I think he will.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Voting. Useful or not?
Yes!
No!
Maybe, but only if you vote my way.
There are theories that ...
Meh ...

Results

Blog Roll
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Intermountain Energy
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Cowgirl
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Prairie Mary
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox