Dissent to Webb's Iran amendment worth pondering

By: beachmom
Published On: 10/8/2007 10:23:00 AM

Last week, Senator Hillary Clinton signed on to co-sponsor Senator Webb's Iran amendment.  The amendment "requires that the President seek congressional authorization prior to commencing any broad military action in Iran", and that it "restore(s) a proper balance between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to the commencement of war".  Yesterday in the New York Times, Mario Cuomo dissents from the viewpoint that a law must be passed in order to prevent war in a very thought provoking op-ed:

SENATORS Jim Webb of Virginia and Hillary Clinton of New York are right to demand that the president go before Congress to ask for a "declaration of war" before proceeding with an attack against Iran or any other nation. But there is no need for this demand to be put into law, as the two Democrats and their colleagues are seeking to do, any more than there is need for legislation to guarantee our right of free speech or anything else protected by the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8 already provides that only Congress has the power to declare war. Perhaps the founders' greatest concern in writing the Constitution was that they might unintentionally create a president who was too much like the British monarch, whom they despised. They expressed that concern in part by assuring that the president would not have the power to declare war.


What Mario Cuomo is getting at is the problem we have run into especially Post-World War Two that somehow the president can start and enter wars without an actual declaration of war from the Congress.  This is anathema to our Constitution.  In essence, both the executive branch and a subservient legislative branch has been allowing a betrayal of the Constitution to occur over and over again, with two tragedies -- the Vietnam War and the endless occupation of Iraq -- being the result.  Mario Cuomo continues:

Congress's refusal to comply with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution has led to a catastrophic aftermath. Such a tragedy should never be allowed to happen again. Rather than enact new legislation that would create constitutional ambiguity, the Democratic leadership in Congress should assert its strength by simply announcing it will allow no "resolutions" or "authorizations" purporting to delegate to the president Congress's constitutional power to declare war against any other nation. Nor will there be any new war without Congress's solemn deliberation and declaration of war.

It seems to me that the only problem with what Mr. Cuomo suggests is the fact that so many Americans no longer realize that declaring war is Congress's job.  When I helped my husband with his test to become a U.S. citizen a few years ago, one of the questions that came up was which branch declares war.  Does anyone care to guess how many Americans would get that answer correct in an age where basic knowledge of what is actually in the Constitution is startlingly low?  (This poll on Americans' knowledge of the first amendment is not a promising sign.)  Worse than that is a media which spends more time on OJ and Britney than on a boring lesson on the separation of powers.  "We the people" are given the solemn job of electing the president and our individual representatives and Senators in the Congress, but without the proper information, how can we do that job?

All of these limitations does not make the matter hopeless, but it does throw down a gauntlet to Democrats to start talking about this vital piece of the Constitution which has been lost.  Mr. Cuomo adds at the end that Democrats should emphatically say that no money will be given to a military operation without the proper declaration of war by Congress as is stipulated in the Constitution, being clear he is including Democratic presidential candidates.  The question we must ask ourselves is are we committed to restoring the checks and balances even if that would limit the powers of a ... Democratic president.  The answer I give without hesitation is yes.

 

Comments



Yes for me too (Alicia - 10/8/2007 11:53:44 AM)
And doesn't this Admin say to those in Congress who wish to seek diplomatic solutions or draw down troops in Iraq that they shouldn't inject their politics into military matters?  No matter the constitution.

Just like Webb's dwell time bill which was FULLY constitutional and I watched Webb on CSpan cite the exact portion of the Constitution that supported the bill -- yet the "dissenters" dramatically yelped about the un-constitutionality of the bill.  ??

IMO - if this bill does not get the support it needs to pass then we should all be very concerned about the next steps the admin takes towards Iran.  They are primed and ready to pounce - and I don't think they have much respect for the Constitution on MANY levels.



Why would Webb's proposal be effective? (cominius - 10/8/2007 9:08:39 PM)
As written the measure would require congressional approval of "broad military action." If administration did attack Iran militarily the argument would be down to the meaning of broad. Why include broad? Bad legislation again if your are for or against.


Read Webb's floor speech (Nell - 10/9/2007 8:55:43 PM)
And read the bill.  It's much more carefully written than you're giving Webb credit for.

floor speech March 2007



Read the bill (Nell - 10/9/2007 9:03:11 PM)
which does not include the phrasing you are talking about.

Here it is:
--------------

S. 759
To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAN.

(a) Prohibition- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any Act, including any Act enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress enacted in a statute enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Exceptions- The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to military operations or activities as follows:

(1) Military operations or activities to directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran.

(2) Military operations or activities to directly thwart an imminent attack to be launched from within the territory of Iran.

(3) Military operations or activities in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter enter into Iran.

(4) Military operations or activities connected with the intelligence or intelligence-related activities of the United States Government.

(c) Report- Not later than 24 hours after determining to utilize funds referred to in subsection (a) for purposes of a military operation described in subsection (b), the President shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the determination, including a justification for the determination.

(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--

(1) the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

(2) the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

--------------
And there you are.  Short and to the point, like Sen. Webb's speeches and questions.



How easily we forget the COLD WAR (ub40fan - 10/8/2007 9:19:50 PM)
The loosening (the loose interpretation) of the war powers article can in part be attributed to the hair trigger nature of a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the USofA.

Consequently Executive Power grew under those circumstances.

Pathetically the Iraq war (with no such imperative) was "sanctioned" by a rubber stamp Senate (with the exception of wise old Senator Byrd and a very few collegues).

Yes Hillary .... what were you thinking back then?? Perhaps a run for the Presidency ... got to show you're tough??  And what about that vote for the Lieberman Kyl admendment??  Do you want that one back, too? Is the Webb admendment your way out??

Cumuo's point is simple. If congress performed like the founders envisioned we would all be better off. But Careerist Politician's ambitions have scued our political system, hence we get things like IRAQ .... a collective diaster.



In an America without the War Powers Act, maybe (Nell - 10/9/2007 8:50:40 PM)
In principle, Mario Cuomo is absolutely correct.  But the Congress over the years has allowed the executive branch to take the country to war without insisting on its constitutional function.  The passage of the Viet Nam war-era War Powers Act was a fatal step backward, permitting the executive to launch attacks that could not continue more than 60 days without Congressional approval.

And this president does not recognize Congress' war powers at all.  The most telling passage of Sen. Webb's floor speech introducing his bill in March:

In signing the 2002 Iraq resolution, the President denied that the Congress has the power to affect his decisions when it comes to the use of our military. He shrugged off this resolution, stating that on the question of the threat posed by Iraq, his views and those of the Congress merely happened to be the same. He characterized the resolution as simply a gesture of additional support, rather than as having any legitimate authority. He stated, "my signing this resolution does not constitute any change in ... the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests..."

Webb's bill, S.759, is absolutely necessary.



beachmom, thanks for raising this very important issue (Nell - 10/9/2007 9:12:32 PM)
The resolution of disputes between the branches of government is tough.  The Supreme Court is reluctant to make these kinds of decisions.  When forced to do so, though, it relies on the actual record of legislation and action over the years.

Looking at the number of opportunities the Congress has had in the last sixty years to exercise its war powers, and the number of times it has failed to do so, the Court would almost be compelled to find that Congress had effectively ceded them.  Only an explicit reassertion of war powers can begin to reverse the trend.

It's also the only way the American people can have any say in the question of whether this country gets involved in a wider, cataclysmic conflict.

Demand that Sen. Warner sign on to S. 759.