Present through all the Iraq debate is an underlying constitutional crisis. The executive power of the CINC is being assailed by an ever more vocal Congress. Assorted seneseless resolutions concerning Iraq have passed with narrow Democrat majorities, including this week. Despite popular concern over executive power, it is Congress that grabs for power by attempting to command troops in the field from their chair-shaped behinds in Washington. The role of Congress and the President are clearly defined, or at least are supposed to be.
One doesn't have to be a constitutional scholar to see the issue clearly. The role of Congress is restricted to declaring war, and either raising, supporting, or providing for the armed forces. That's it. Article II, Section 2 states "The President shall be commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;...". These two roles are simply stated and brightly marked. The Founders didn't write this stuff by chance. They knew that a remote Congress cannot and should not attempt to directly command troops in the field. They wisely left the soldiering to Washington, who often chastised legislators for failing to provide for deployed forces. This arrangement worked much to their success, especially since many in the Continental Congress lacked basic knowledge of military affairs. Sound familiar?
As events progress, consider how far Congress is attempting to reach. Match that against the Constitution, and you can clearly see Congress attempting to wield executive power. Investigation and not legislation will probably rule for the remainder of the current administration. President Bush is right to stand firm when 535 little generals on Capitol Hill attempt to command forces from eight thousand miles away. Their only choice is either to fund the war or not fund the war. And since they have already demonstrated that they likely will not anytime soon acquire the political guts to terminate funding, expect the status quo.
I always feel better when Congress is out of town.
One doesn't have to be a constitutional scholar to see the issue clearly. The role of Congress is restricted to declaring war, and either raising, supporting, or providing for the armed forces. That's it. Article II, Section 2 states "The President shall be commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;...". These two roles are simply stated and brightly marked. The Founders didn't write this stuff by chance. They knew that a remote Congress cannot and should not attempt to directly command troops in the field. They wisely left the soldiering to Washington, who often chastised legislators for failing to provide for deployed forces. This arrangement worked much to their success, especially since many in the Continental Congress lacked basic knowledge of military affairs. Sound familiar?
As events progress, consider how far Congress is attempting to reach. Match that against the Constitution, and you can clearly see Congress attempting to wield executive power. Investigation and not legislation will probably rule for the remainder of the current administration. President Bush is right to stand firm when 535 little generals on Capitol Hill attempt to command forces from eight thousand miles away. Their only choice is either to fund the war or not fund the war. And since they have already demonstrated that they likely will not anytime soon acquire the political guts to terminate funding, expect the status quo.
I always feel better when Congress is out of town.
JINGOCON
No comments:
Post a Comment