 |
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Constitution, The War, and The Candidates
by Dave
Chandler There is an important test voters should give this year to every candidate running for the United States Senate and House of Representatives. It is a test that will reveal a candidate's commitment to our constitution and the republic. We all learned in grade school that the people's representatives operate under the guidelines of the Constitution. That controlling document explicitly states: "The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War ..." (Article 1: Section 8). With the Bush administration now actively agitating for war with Iraq, the question all candidates, incumbents or challengers, should answer is whether or not they will insist upon exercising their unique power to vote yes or no on a declaration of war. In matters of peace and war, the stakes are always high. The drafters of our constitution knew this since many of them fought in the Revolution, and because English history taught them that monarchs often waged wars for personal power, but that the entire country always paid the price in lives and gold. In our country it was decided to do things differently. The power of the Congress to make war is integral to the constitution's system of checks and balances. As Thomas Jefferson noted: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." Although the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just embarked upon limited hearings, what is known as the world's greatest deliberative body, should begin comprehensive consideration of a war with Iraq -- it does not need the permission of the president to start that process. And we should dispense with specious arguments that a declaration of war is non-essential; no amount of legal sophistry should preclude the obvious -- as every American who reads a newspaper knows, this would be a new war, with a new objective, clearly requiring the fulfillment of the constitutional mandate. For me there is a beautiful consistency in our Constitution and it can be seen in three important reasons why the Founders gave the war power to the Congress instead of to the commander-in-chief. First, was to have a debate binding the citizenry to the decision. Second, it is the same Congress that must raise the money and pay for any such undertaking. Third, the Constitution gives the very responsibility for raising and supporting the armed forces to the Congress. In the first instance, the Congress is the branch of government closest to the people. Elected directly by the people, the 435 representatives speak for the many different regions and constituencies that comprise the nation. In this particular circumstance, this idea has even greater significance since George W. Bush did not win the popular vote in the 2000 election. He was installed in the White House indirectly by the Electoral College. Nevertheless, as formulator of foreign policy, if Bush wants to take the country to war, the burden of proof should be upon him to convince the Congress of the need to act. In a democracy, where power resides with the people, the plain unvarnished truth must be shown to them if they are to make responsible decisions. As the people's representatives, the Congress must insist upon a public presentation of the hard evidence and proof that no other alternative exists except war. Assurances from Bush or Rumsfeld based on top secret intelligence are not good enough. If the administration's contention is that a war is necessary because of Iraq's conduct, we must see the evidence. We must have a moment like the one during the Cuban missile crisis when UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson dramatically presented the world with the photographic proof of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. We might also hope that the national news media would facilitate a genuine debate. It will be critical that those whom are opposing the prevailing opinion be heard if we are to understand all the implications of war. Imagine, Meet the Press' Tim Russert might actually have to interview someone from outside the Washington elite. Secondly, the consequences of war go far beyond the endangerment of human lives in armed conflict. There are questions of cold practical reality that must be faced. Foremost of these is the cost. An attack on Iraq and an occupation of that country, which could last from five to twenty years, might cost well over $100 billion. Difficult decisions would have to be made because, as affluent as the United States may be, we are not a bottomless well of money. The war would have to be paid for. So we have to answer these questions: What taxes will be raised? Or, if a war tax is not levied, exactly where will the spending cuts come from to pay for this military action? Or, how much federal borrowing is acceptable for future generations to pay-off? This is not mere political posturing, this is the ponderous business of war. Since all appropriations bills must originate in the House of Representatives, and be passed by the Senate, a declaration of war means the obligation falls squarely on the shoulders of the national legislature. It is an important reason why the consent of Congress is absolutely necessary for war. Third, it is the Congress that is responsible for organizing and supporting an army and navy. Article 2, Section 8, of the Constitution says "The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term that two Years;" and "To provide and maintain a Navy." While in recent times it has become popular belief that a president has far reaching powers in military matters, the Constitution makes clear that the 'commander-in-chief' role is actually limited just to leading the army and navy that the Congress itself has created and funded. A declaration of war bonds the Congress itself to the decision. The conclusion, therefore, drawn from the words of the Constitution is that when it comes war, supreme authority rests with the Congress, not the president. At this point, with the lack of evidence thus far presented, I would oppose a war with Iraq. However, if after a genuine and honest debate, the Congress voted to declare war, at least we would be reassured that the process worked as the Founding Fathers contemplated. Of course, if the Congress opted not to issue a declaration of war, then we would hope that the current resident of the White House would accept that decision as the will of the people. As for me, I believe that a formal declaration of war from the Congress is an absolute necessity. Furthermore, if Bush attacks Iraq without a declaration of war, if I am elected to Congress, I will follow the spirit of the Constitution and file articles of impeachment against Mr. Bush. But first, let us ask the test question, let the candidates speak, and then in November you can decide the future of our constitutional republic. (c) Copyright Dave Chandler 2002 Permission to reprint with attribution is granted. Chandler Challenges National Candidates On
Declaration of War This article is the work of the authors only and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Green Party of the United States. If you wish to send a message to the editors regarding this or any item on the website, please email us.
|
|
Office: PO Box 57065 Washington, D.C. 20037 |