Photo by Jerry Reynolds
I read this op-ed piece in the New York Times, and I thought I would share it.
The nation is heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq war. Congress is moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war, but President Bush insists Congress doesnâ€™t have the power to do it. â€œI donâ€™t think Congress ought to be running the war,â€ he said at a recent press conference. â€œI think they ought to be funding the troops.â€ He added magnanimously: â€œIâ€™m certainly interested in their opinion.â€
The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congressâ€™s side.
Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitutionâ€™s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called â€œthe foetus of monarchy.â€
The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europeâ€™s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that â€œabsolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.â€
Many critics of the Iraq war are reluctant to suggest that President Bush went into it in anything but good faith. But James Madison, widely known as the father of the Constitution, might have been more skeptical. â€œIn war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed,â€ he warned. â€œIt is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.â€
When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.
The Constitution does make the president â€œcommander in chief,â€ a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be â€œnothing moreâ€ than â€œfirst general and admiral,â€ responsible for â€œcommand and directionâ€ of military forces.
The founders would have been astonished by President Bushâ€™s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congressâ€™s control over spending as â€œthe most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.â€
The framers expected Congress to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters. The Constitution authorizes Congress to appropriate money for an army, but prohibits appropriations for longer than two years. Hamilton explained that the limitation prevented Congress from vesting â€œin the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.â€
As opinion turns more decisively against the war, the administration is becoming ever more dismissive of Congressâ€™s role. Last week, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman brusquely turned away Senator Hillary Clintonâ€™s questions about how the Pentagon intended to plan for withdrawal from Iraq. “Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq,â€ he wrote. Mr. Edelmanâ€™s response showed contempt not merely for Congress, but for the system of government the founders carefully created.
The Constitution cannot enforce itself. It is, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin famously observed, an â€œinvitation to struggleâ€ among the branches, but the founders wisely bequeathed to Congress some powerful tools for engaging in the struggle. It is no surprise that the current debate over a deeply unpopular war is arising in the context of a Congressional spending bill. That is precisely what the founders intended.
Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king.