I would like students in both my American Government and U.S. Constitution courses to consider what the Constitution says about the power to declare war. It seems that the document contains a great deal of ambiguity regarding this issue. I also want you to apply your understanding of the constitutional power to declare war to the conflict in Iraq. Was the decision to go into Iraq constitutionally legitimate? If so, on what grounds? If not, who should be held responsible for this constitutional breach?
The Independent Thinkers
A page for thinking people who tirelessly challenge their own assumptions and let neither conventionality nor agenda nor political party obstruct the relentless pursuit of truth
- Home
- Books of Note
- Election 2008
- Films of Note
- Groundbreakers
- In the News
- Music
- Video Presentations and Clips
Google US. News- Lou Dobbs resigns from CNN - Los Angeles Times
- A Fort Hood trial likely will be slow to unfold - Philadelphia Inquirer
- On Veterans Day, members of commission are sworn in - Baltimore Sun
- Scoring system for school aid - Washington Post
- Oregon woman killed by husband filed for divorce - The Associated Press
September 9, 2008 at 7:54 pm |
The Constitution is very flimsy on the issue of power to declare war. It states that the president must seek approval from congress to officially declare war. This does not mean that the President cannot send troops to foreign countries without the approval of Congress. The decision to go into Iraq was constitutionally legitimate as it was voted on by congress and Bush was given authorization to use the US Armed Forces to stop threats against the safety of the US. Pres Bush and his cabinet did use some questionable tactics to persuade some members of congress into going to war without being completely aware of the true situation but overall it was constitutional. The intelligence before the invasion was questionable after the fact but we had to believe the information in front of us at the time because it was a threat to national security. On one hand, we are lucky that not all of it was true such as the capability of Saddam Hussein to attack the eastern seaboard with biological and chemical means.
September 9, 2008 at 9:56 pm |
It seems to me that the ambiguity is intentional-war is, like most things, in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps the President chose to view it as an opportunity to inflict war without having to worry abut the looming danger of the troops being pulled back after only a short time overseas? This seems an obvious inconvenience-yet strangely considerate of unnecessary expenditure of natural resources-an issue the current Administration has yet to satisfactorily address.
Metaphorically, war can be considered to be a disease rooted in the mind and spreading through the body (hence, the world-or, at least, the part we are considering here)-but not being acknowledged by the diseased subject. Those who are directly affected by the war can be expressed as, perhaps, a limb, a hand, or a foot, carrying and controlling much of the mass-to a point, because even they are controlled, at some level, by the brain.
Still speaking in terms of this example, we can classify Society as the rest of the subject (in social groups, respectively) and the war as not only the disease, but also as an underlying threat-while the patient acknowledges that it is there, he or she does not know – and seemingly does not care – whether or not it is fatal.
This, we are left to ponder.
September 16, 2008 at 4:03 am |
“But the U.S. Constitution, to which the president swears allegiance, refers not to the U.N. but rather to the American Congress. Article 1, Sec. 8 (11) states that “Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war.” As Alexander Hamilton indicated, 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.” – Doug Bandow
Just as terrorism is a series of acts (or extremist ideas) that instill fear into a demographic of people, the Bush Administration has, through many media, caused the American people to stand behind them in an invasion on Iraqi soil. The issue of whether our involvement with Iraq was constitutional after the events of 9/11 is a stale one. American government was designed with the intention to disallow and prevent any one section from obtaining too much power. Congress can declare war, but the president has the authority to act in defense under the name of a different clause. The Bush Administration proves to care only for a single group’s welfare and reputation – themselves. Regardless of debates that state that we are not actually at war, that it wasn’t legally declared, the actions that have taken place in light of our failure to manage international terrorism are irreversible and have greatly damaged our relationship with allies. The attacks of 9/11 frightened and challenged government officials, the military, and civilians alike. However, due to poor judgment and personal interest, we’ve spent trillions of dollars and countless lives, both American and otherwise, on a quest that years later, seems not to be conquered. Even the biggest advocates for the war have found themselves with their foot in their mouths. The president serves an a commander in chief. His deductive abilities and multi-faceted thinking are paramount to leading reputable foreign policy. Whether or not we blame Congress, the results of poor decision-making, barbaric thinking, and hope for personal gain can easily be blamed on the President and Vice-President’s blatant failure to carry out proper judgment that is the foundation of the U.S. Constitution.
November 12, 2008 at 7:19 am |
This may deviate from the topic a bit, so my apologies. But I do have some important thoughts to share in relation to this issue. Just my two cents here.
The current system, which (as I understand it) allows the President to deploy troops on a short term basis but mandates approval by congress for long term deployment, seems to indicate the Founding Fathers thought out this system of checks and balances on this particular issue very well. Myself, if I was, theoretically, designing a mechanism for government that would deal with matters of war, I would have chosen this exact system. Here is my reasoning, summarized in 3 main points:
1) The ability of Congress to act quickly and decisively in matters of troop deployment/war is not equal to that of the President – and so I think it is quite important that the President is able to make this decision independently. Additionally, I think it goes a long ways towards international respect. From a world perspective, the authority of our nation is significantly bolstered by the fact that our leader – although the leader of a democracy – has the power to make decisive and immediate decisions on this regard.
2) The President, clearly, should not have the ability to “wage war”, I.E: the President under no circumstances should have the authority to commit troops to any purpose without first achieving support from congress. This would, obviously, prevent the President from committing the nation to a war not in the nation’s best interest, and from utilizing troops towards any personal agenda.
3) Congress, independently, CLEARLY should not be able to declare war. For example, if the President of the United States ( who, for all intents and purposes, “represents” the U.S.) makes the decision to NOT deploy troops a certain situation, then Congress must respect this decision. Again, as I stated at the end of my first point: for a nation to be respected, it must impress upon the world a collective set of policies, and should not be seen as a entity made up of a dysfunctional government in which the decision makers are constantly in disagreement. By working out decisions of foreign policy(In this case, Troop Deployment and/or “War”) on an internal basis, we can then be a model nation and a working example of a democracy.
– Personally, I think this is a very important issue on the national level. While I frown upon “forcing” democracy upon any nation or group of people(Such as what has occurred in the state of Iraq), I think that the spread of democracy is of the utmost importance – and that every effort should be made on the part of the U.S. to spread the ideals of democracy in a non-forceful manner. Too many men and women in this world will never be blessed as we have to be able to live in a free democracy.
On the issue of Iraq: I am of the opinion that the “War Powers Resolution” passed by Congress is of extreme importance. It is a surprising example of how a fair and well reasoned piece of legislation can be produced in a high-pressure situation. Passed in the heat of the Vietnam War, Congress was under a considerable amount of pressure from the public to enact a law that would effectively prevent the current president(Nixon) and any future president, from ever engaging the nation in war without congressional approval. Instead of implementing a radical proposal such as preventing the President from independently declaring war, or ignoring the issue entirely, Congress managed to produce an well thought-out piece of legislation that very effectively addressed the prevailing public consensus that the issue of Presidential declarations of war must be dealt with. The War Powers Resolution Act,, as I assume most people know, implemented the requirement that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and prevents the military from remaining for more than 60 days without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. (Note: I found this on Wikipedia, I didn’t actually know the exact provisions).
I think it is APPALLING (Forgive my use of capital letters, but I think it helps draw attention to my main point here, my apologies for taking so long.) that since the resolution was passed, we have had Presidents who have blatantly ignored the provisions of this act by questioning it’s constiutionality. Simply declaring something as “unconstitutional” is no excuse with which to ignore. If I was to neglect to register for the selective service on the grounds that a draft is “unconstitutional” – I would be a hypocrite. No one can simultaneously claim to have constitutional rights while refusing to obey the laws of the very same government which is responsible for protecting those rights. There is a process under which issues of constitutionality can be addressed. But to ignore the law on the basis of constitutionality is reprehensible. For a President of the United States to consider himself, essentially, “above” the law – by opposing a law and invoking the Constitution as a means with which to evaluate it’s legitimacy – is behavior far from that which we should expect from our nation’s leader.
” The record of presidential communication had been extensive. However, it was also noted that these communications, for the most part, had been presidential exercises in telling the Congress what had been already decided and done, not invitations for Congress to join in the decisionmaking process. [5] The Representative’s conclusion was that the consultation requirement, by itself, did little to inhibit presidents from unilaterally deploying armed forces into hostile settings.” – The War Powers Resolution: A Rationale for Congressional Inaction (Spring, 2001 by Timothy S. Boylan, Glenn A. Phelps)
Please forgive any factual errors I may have inadvertently based some of my comments on. My understanding of the processes of government that relate to matters of war is not at the level I wish it was, which I find regrettably is often the case with my knowledge of many other aspects of our government.
To the other folks who commented on this thread:
Tom Poudrier – I could not agree more with your assessment of the constitutional legitimacy of the decision to go into Iraq. I think that the decision should definitely have been more well thought out, and furthermore, I think that the fact that faulty intelligence played such a large role in a matter as serious as war – is a real shame.
T. Abbot – At the risk of sounding like a ignorant asshole, I will say that you clearly have some deep thoughts on this matter, but that I am regrettably, at the moment, unable to decipher any part of your post. I can only say that perhaps my current state of sleep deprivation (It’s currently 2AM, and ive got just a few hours left on my “all-night study cram” for the U.S. Constitution quiz tomorrow) is behind this. Nonetheless, I disagree with, but admire regardless, your metaphor of war as being a “disease” of the body.
- Adrian Bos