UPDATE and BUMP: Copied this from the comments from RightwingSnarkle -
...Founders were concerned about (this) - that a single person (or small group) could commit the country to foreign entanglements. That's why congress alone has the authority to declare (and fund) war. It's not something to be taken lightly, or done without thorough deliberation.Which reminds me that Congress abdicates that responsibility every time it issues an AUMF.
Over at RedStateEclectic, Laura comes up with the best analogy for the importance of declaring war as defined by the Constitution:
Say what you will about the assorted "authorizations to use force"--the difference between those and a formal declaration of war is somewhat akin to the difference between a teenager telling a girl that he really, really loves her on the one hand, and marrying her on the other (to use what is, I guess, sort of an outdated analogy in many circles). It's the difference between taking an action and hoping for good results, absent commitment--and commitment no matter what the results, to the bitter end.Similar to the way Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal, I've always thought that AUMF's were in the same vein. A workaround, a way to get a desired result without meeting the high threshold that following the Constitution would require.
Would George Bush have been able to get a formal declaration from Congress back in 2003 to conduct a preemptive war against Iraq? Based on what evidence we had, there being a GOP controlled Congress, and it being 2 years after 9/11. Probably. Why
5 comments:
Why he didn't he?
Good question. I've wondered that too. Have any theories?
I think there are 2 reasons for this, and Maximus and I have discussed this before.
1. Tradition. The US has not declared war since 1942 (when we declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania). This means that we did not declare war for Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Kosovo, Gulf War I, or Afghanistan. Additionally, even prior to 1942, the US was involved in global conflicts without a "declaration of war," including the Barbary Pirates.
2. PR - This is my theory, but I think it holds water. The idea here is that we were not at war with the people of Iraq, but rather were at war with their "rogue" regime. By declaring war on Iraq, there would have been a perception that we were declaring war on Iraq and all its people, rather than just enforcing regime change.
As an aside - the Constitution specifies that Congress has the power to "declare war," but does not specify how that power is to be used. Historically, Congress has used both a formal "declaration of war" and an "authorization of force" to authorize military force. There is no specific Constitutional requirement that a "declaration of war" (as was used in the past) be used to declare war. Since the Constitution doesn't specify, can't the Congress decide how the power is to be used? And if so, can't they declare war via an authorization of military force, even though it is not titled as a "declaration of war?"
Both are good points. I was leaning more toward point two. Point two explains point one.
This is where CMStrapz and I disagree.
I don't buy the PR argument for the Iraqi's for this reason: By following Geneva Conventions (which we do now and have since the late 1800's), we can't target the Iraqi people in general, only the leadership and military forces. That is one tradition that has served us well. Besides, there is no way you can win "hearts and minds" by intentionally killing innocent civilians.
Interesting question...
For Iraq - I think going to Congress in 2002 was just for show (Cheney et al were gonna go to Iraq no matter what - the decision had long been made), as well as a political dare/scare tactic to dems (the vote on AUMF was held prior to the midterm elections).
For the others - I think they're each examples of an executive branch that didn't want to deal with the risks/effort associated with lobbying congress. That's probably because none of the actions cited were as clear cut and/or had the level of political support that were evident following Pearl Harbor.
Presidents in general don't really care much for congress, and would rather strike out on their own. Cheney et al aren't unique in that regard, though no other admin has ever shown their degree of contempt for the constitution, or their level of single-mindedness in pursuing the matter.
Which is what the Founders were concerned about - that a single person (or small group) could commit the country to foreign entanglements. That's why congress alone has the authority to declare (and fund) war. It's not something to be taken lightly, or done without thorough deliberation.
PS - I posted a response to your comment in the gun threat at Belle's, which is why I clicked over here in the first place.
Thx
Post a Comment