It is not uncommon for people to think that whenever the military is used, our rights as citizens of a free country are at stake and that is not correct. The last time someone died for our freedoms was during WWII.
The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 8(11) states that "Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war." As Alexander Hamilton wrote, the president is commander-in-chief, but he is to fulfill his responsibilities only within the framework established by the Constitution and subject to the control of Congress.
The Constitution assigns the power to declare war exclusively to the legislature. Modern supporters of the doctrine of president-as-Caesar like to remind us that convention delegates changed Congress' authority from "make" to "declare" war, but they did so only to allow the president the authority to respond to a sudden attack. When Pierce Butler, of South Carolina, formally proposed giving the president the power to start war, Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, said that he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the executive to declare war." Butler's motion was quickly rejected.
The reasoning of the conferees in opposing Butler's measure was simple. Virginia's George Mason explained, the president "is not safely to be entrusted with" the power to decide on war. Mason therefore favored "clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson, though an advocate of a strong presidency, observed that the new constitutional system "will not hurry us into war." Instead, "it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress." Similarly, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "We have already given . . . one effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose."
Even Hamilton agreed with Jefferson on this point, which he rarely did, pointing out that the war powers of the president were "in substance much inferior to" that of the British king. And Hamilton supported this result even while backing strong executive power. As he wrote in the Federalist No. 75: The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.
This fundamental concern of the Constitution's framers — an unwillingness to trust "a single man . . . to involve us in such distress," in Wilson's words — has certainly been validated by American history. The manifold dishonest and secret machinations of this century's presidents, especially the "strong" ones so highly rated by historians, prove how dangerous it is to trust chief executives with minor grants of authority, let alone the power to take the nation into war. If requiring a legislative vote is no guarantee that the public will be protected from unnecessary and bloody national crusades, it does at least force a debate and more easily allow voters to ultimately hold someone responsible for their decisions.
Against this historical record there is no serious disagreement. George Bush, for instance, stated that "I don't think I need it" when asked if congressional approval was necessary before attacking Iraq. Why? "Many attorneys," he said, had "so advised me." He apparently did not bother to read the Constitution himself. Onetime law professor Bill Clinton offered no better justification. When it came to both Bosnia and Haiti in late 1993, Clinton said that he opposed "any attempts to encroach on" his prerogatives. He did, however, echo George Bush in saying that he would "encourage congressional authorization of any military involvement in Bosnia." As for Haiti, he stated last August: "I would welcome the support of the Congress and I hope that I will have that. But like my predecessors in both parties, I have not agreed that I was constitutionally mandated to get it." In short, the president desired a guaranteed affirmative vote. The Constitution, however, does not limit Congress to voting yes.
That the Constitution gives Congress the final decision as to war and peace does not mean that there are no gray areas. But the existence of some unclear cases does not mean that there are no unambiguous instances where congressional approval is required, such as defending South Korea from North Korea, spending a decade warring in Indochina, invading Panama and Haiti, transporting a half-million soldiers to the Middle East to attack Iraq, conquering Haiti, and intervening on Bosnia's side in the Balkans civil war.
What conceivable justification is there for ignoring the Constitution's straightforward requirement in cases such as these? Advocates of expansive executive war power — oddly enough, including those who claim to believe in a jurisprudence of "original intent" — have come up with a number of reasons to give the president virtually unrestrained authority to act. One is that the president has some undefined "foreign affairs power" that apparently overrides the war powers provision. Yet, the Constitution carefully circumscribes the president's authority in foreign affairs in a number of ways — the Senate must approve treaties and ambassadors, for instance. Both the House and Senate regulate commerce with other countries; establish the military; organize the militia; make decisions covering the use of these forces; and oversee the rules of war (by authorizing letters of marquis and reprisal, defining and punishing piracy, and so forth). All told, the constitutional provisions that laid the strongest foundation for a major executive role in foreign policy are more safely explained as a cautious reaction against the defects of exclusive senatorial control of foreign relations than as a bold attempt to convert the noble office of a republican presidency into a vigorous national leader in world affairs.
Note in the following speech the President quickly responds to provide for the common defense as written in the Preamble to the Constitution but asks Congress for a Declaration of War.
Recent Presidents do not know their place and we let them get away with it.
Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Japan
December 8, 1941
Mr. Vice President, and Mr. Speaker, and Members of the Senate and House of Representatives:
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American Island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation.
As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
But always will our whole Nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces -- with the unbounding determination of our people -- we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity NEED TO WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment