NYT: Congress, the Constitution and War: The Limits on Presidential Power

[grytpype]

Must-read article on Congress's power to pass laws limiting George's War.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/washington/29repubs.html

January 29, 2007
Editorial Observer
Congress, the Constitution and War: The Limits on Presidential Power
By ADAM COHEN

...

If it does, we may be headed toward a constitutional clash, with the administration trying to read powers into the Constitution — as it has with its “enemy combatant” doctrine and presidential “signing statements” —that the Founders did not put there. The Constitution’s drafters were intent on balancing power so no one branch could drift toward despotism. The system of checks and balances that runs through the document divides the war power between the president and Congress.

The Constitution’s provision that the president is the commander in chief clearly puts him at the top of the military chain of command. Congress would be overstepping if, for example, it passed a law requiring generals in the field to report directly to the speaker of the House.

But the Constitution also gives Congress an array of war powers, including the power to “declare war,” “raise and support armies” and “make rules concerning captures on land and water.” By “declare war,” the Constitution’s framers did not mean merely firing off a starting gun. In the 18th century, war declarations were often limited in scope — European powers might fight a naval battle in the Americas, for example, but not battle on their own continent. In giving Congress the power to declare war, the Constitution gives it authority to make decisions about a war’s scope and duration.

...

There is little question that Congress could use its power of the purse to end a war. But cutting off financing is a drastic step, and one that members of Congress are understandably reluctant to take, because it can look like a refusal to support the troops. The Constitution’s text, Supreme Court cases and history show, however, that Congress can instead pass laws that set the terms of military engagement. Whether it would be wise for Congress to adopt such limits is debatable; whether it has the authority to do so should not be.

The Bush administration insists that if Congress tries to manage the Iraq war, it will leave the commander in chief with too little authority. But the greater danger is the one Madison recognized at the nation’s founding — that all the power will be left with the person “most interested in war, and most prone to it.

[kentuck]

1. This was a very defined paragraph....

"The Founders, including James Madison, who is often called “the father of the Constitution,” fully expected Congress to use these powers to rein in the commander in chief. “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,” Madison cautioned. “It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

[twylatharp]

2. thanks for that.

I've never found such a cause for worry about the intentions of the constitution being overridden as now.

[omega minimo]

3. K/R

[Edweird]

4. We are overdue for a "correction"

And the people are finally seeing what is really going on. Cuckoobananas won't get much further.

[Kagemusha]

5. So what if Bush vetoes?

That is the first, most obvious, and most damning thing that comes to mind, since the plain vanilla veto most definitely passes constitutional muster.