Cheney - Strict Constructionist
Wouldn't it be nice if the Vice-President had actually read the Constitution he is sworn to defend?
From an article in the Washington Post:
Around the part where the President gets to be commander in chief, he gets to demand written reports from his officers and grant pardons. He also gets to make treaties, but only if two-thirds of the Senate agrees. (It seems preposterous to suggest that the President needs two-thirds of the Senate to make a treaty with another country, but he could attack that country even if two-thirds of the Senate disagreed. Maybe that's just me.)
So, when the Constitution discusses piracy, offenses againt the law of nations, declaring war, making rules of capture, raising and supporting an army, providing and maintaining a navy, governing and regulating the land and sea forces, calling forth the militia, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and exercising exclusive powers over forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings, it gives the power to Congress. And, as if that weren't enough, it gives Congress the power to make the laws to execute those powers, or any other powers it gives the government of the United States.
When it gives power to the President, that power seems clearly administrative: commanding the forces, getting reports, making pardons. And making treaties if the Senate says OK. "Commander in chief" power is clearly subordinate to Congress, and, depending on how you interpret the commas, is only even operative after the armed forces are called into actual service, by, obviously, Congress. The President's powers are described in one clause, as opposed to Congress' eight clauses specifically describing control of the military, followed by one giving Congress control of the execution of all powers of the government.
I understand that Mr. Cheney wishes he was just a heartbeat away from the throne, and not the Presidency, but it just ain't so. He's not only arguing the dubious proposition that the phrase "commander in chief" gives the President the power to declare war, but the even more absurd position that the President can fight wars that Congress votes against. That is just ridiculous. And I think a reasonably intelligent fourth-grader would get that just from reading the actual words. What is Cheney's problem?
Jimmy Carter is right to be concerned.
From an article in the Washington Post:
"Vice President Cheney said in an interview that the proper power of the presidency has finally been restored after being diminished in the wake of the Vietnam War and Watergate, and that President Bush contributed to the process by not allowing his narrow victory in the 2000 election to inhibit him during his first term. . . .I think it would be pretty hard to find support in the Constitution that the President had power to make a war that Congress was against. Let's take a look at Article I, Section 8.
"The vice president has been at the forefront of an effort by the Bush White House to promote an expansive view of presidential power by frequently invoking constitutional principle in refusing to hand over documents to Congress or allowing administration officials to testify before congressional committees."
Cheney is critical of the War Powers Act, and told Woodward that the Constitution, which makes the president the commander in chief of the armed forces, provides sufficient legal authority to launch a war even if Congress votes against it.
The Congress shall have power ... To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;Later, in Article 2, Section 2, it says:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
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; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.You'll notice that, in and around the part where Congress gets to declare war, that they get all kinds of authority to make rules and definitions, organize, arm, discipline, and also exercise "exclusive" legislation in all cases whatsoever over places purchased for "forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings."
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ...
Around the part where the President gets to be commander in chief, he gets to demand written reports from his officers and grant pardons. He also gets to make treaties, but only if two-thirds of the Senate agrees. (It seems preposterous to suggest that the President needs two-thirds of the Senate to make a treaty with another country, but he could attack that country even if two-thirds of the Senate disagreed. Maybe that's just me.)
So, when the Constitution discusses piracy, offenses againt the law of nations, declaring war, making rules of capture, raising and supporting an army, providing and maintaining a navy, governing and regulating the land and sea forces, calling forth the militia, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and exercising exclusive powers over forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings, it gives the power to Congress. And, as if that weren't enough, it gives Congress the power to make the laws to execute those powers, or any other powers it gives the government of the United States.
When it gives power to the President, that power seems clearly administrative: commanding the forces, getting reports, making pardons. And making treaties if the Senate says OK. "Commander in chief" power is clearly subordinate to Congress, and, depending on how you interpret the commas, is only even operative after the armed forces are called into actual service, by, obviously, Congress. The President's powers are described in one clause, as opposed to Congress' eight clauses specifically describing control of the military, followed by one giving Congress control of the execution of all powers of the government.
I understand that Mr. Cheney wishes he was just a heartbeat away from the throne, and not the Presidency, but it just ain't so. He's not only arguing the dubious proposition that the phrase "commander in chief" gives the President the power to declare war, but the even more absurd position that the President can fight wars that Congress votes against. That is just ridiculous. And I think a reasonably intelligent fourth-grader would get that just from reading the actual words. What is Cheney's problem?
Jimmy Carter is right to be concerned.
"Former president Jimmy Carter, also interviewed for the show . . . said he worries about a new imperial presidency. 'I think nowadays, there's a tendency to isolate the president, to exalt the president, to make it almost unpatriotic to criticize the president,' Carter said. 'I think this is a trend that causes me some concern.' "I want my country back.
posted by Paul at 9:01 AM |
|
email this
