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

[DeepModem Mom]

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

President Bush doesn’t seem to care that Congress wants a bigger role in guiding the Iraq war. Talking about his plan to send in 20,000 additional troops, he said on “60 Minutes” that he knows Congress can vote against it, “but I’ve made my decision and we’re going forward.”

It is hardly the first time this president has insisted that he is “the decider,” or even the first time he’s used the Constitution to justify it, as Vice President Dick Cheney did when he told Fox News: “The Constitution is very clear that the president is, in fact, under Article 2, the commander in chief.”

But Mr. Cheney told only half the story. Congress has war powers, too, and with 70 percent of Americans now opposed to President Bush’s handling of the war, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll, it is becoming more assertive about them. Congress is poised to pass a resolution denouncing the troop increase. Down the line, Congress may well consider mandatory caps on the number of troops in Iraq, or setting a date for withdrawal.

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....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....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/opinion/29mon4.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[LonelyLRLiberal]

1. Glad NYT is making this point again - the Bushchenista Tyranny must end. eom

[Bitwit1234]

2. I have posted this over and over

If congress revokes the power they gave bush when he invaded Iraq and he continues he is committing TREASON. bush is the commander-in-chief of the military. HE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO POWER TO DICTATE TO THE PUBLIC. HE IS NOT THEIR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF...HE IS ONLY A PRESIDENT WHOSE POSITION IS QUESTIONABLE AT THE LEAST. We just don't think he was ever elected.

[Mechatanketra]

5. My own flogging horse as well.

For a while now I've been kicking at the recurring meme that "the power of the purse is Congress's only option". Congress owns the on-off switch on the WH's war powers.

[indepat]

3. We haven't drifted toward despotism: we've been knee-deep it it for five years

thanks to a Supreme Court which renders extremely political, rather than constitutional, decisions and the boot-licking lock-stepping three preceding Congresses. :shrug:

[williesgirl]

4. K&R

[struggle4progress]

6. The word "war" doesn't even occur in Article II