Out of Line
The danger of an imperial presidency is much greater when a president takes the nation to war. The Constitution’s framers were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not create a kingdom.
The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. John Jay, the first chief justice noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”
When they drafted the Constitution, James 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 rejected this model and gave these powers to Congress.
The founders would have been astonished by Bush’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 Congress’s control over spending as “the 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.”
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.
The Constitution cannot enforce itself. It is, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin observed, an “invitation to struggle” among the branches, but the founders wisely bequeathed to Congress some powerful tools for engaging in the struggle. It’s 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, it’s not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush.
The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. John Jay, the first chief justice noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”
When they drafted the Constitution, James 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 rejected this model and gave these powers to Congress.
The founders would have been astonished by Bush’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 Congress’s control over spending as “the 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.”
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.
The Constitution cannot enforce itself. It is, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin observed, an “invitation to struggle” among the branches, but the founders wisely bequeathed to Congress some powerful tools for engaging in the struggle. It’s 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, it’s not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush.
posted by Jim O'Leary | 12:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home