home

Defunding The Iraq Debacle: There Would Be No Constitutional Crisis

I have written so much on the Iraq Debacle and how to end it, that I really feel all I am doing now is repeating myself. I am for the Democratic leadership of Congress announcing a date certain for when no more funding would be provided for the Irag Debacle. The date is subject to political consideration. But pick a date certain. Everyone agrees the Congress can do this. Including Bush and Cheney. Despite that some on the Left still write this:

Dems don't have either the votes or the balls to force a constitutional confrontation with Bush to get us out of this war.

What Constitutional Crisis? There would be NO Constitutional Crisis.

Mike Lux, who wrote the above quote, then suggests a laundry list of things to do, which is fine, but then says this, which is not:

These may not be perfect solutions, but there are none in this situation. Let's keep looking for strategies and pressure points that actually help us, rather than bitching about things we can't change.

Bitching about things we can't change? Who's we Kemosabi? The Congress can end the war. And it can do it without sparking a "Constitutional Crisis." Sheesh, let's give the spineless another big excuse to do nothing why don't we? Look, if you do not know what you are talking about, then don't talk. Lux just did. A reminder:

In Federalist 69, Hamilton described the division of the war power thusly:
The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

And the Federalist Papers also speak to the REAL questions, the ones the law professors avoided in their mad rush to defend the idea of Congressional micromanagement of the Iraq war, to wit, can Congress end the war, and if so, how? The Federalist papers provide the answer. In Federalist 24, Hamilton wrote:

that standing armies [need not] be kept up in time of peace; [n]or [is] it vested in the EXECUTIVE the whole power of levying troops, without subjecting his discretion, in any shape, to the control of the legislature. . . . [T]he whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected; . . . there [is], in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity.

Here Hamilton states clearly that the power to end wars resides in the Congress most clearly through the power of the purse and the EXPRESS requirement that no appropriations for a standing Army last for more than two years. In this way, any war would require a de facto reauthorization from the Congress every two years by its decision to fund the war.

In Federalist 26, Hamilton wrote:

Let us examine whether there be any comparison, in point of efficacy, between the provision alluded to and that which is contained in the new Constitution, for restraining the appropriations of money for military purposes to the period of two years. . . . The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence. . . . The provision for the support of a military force will always be a favorable topic for declamation. As often as the question comes forward, the public attention will be roused and attracted to the subject, by the party in opposition; and if the majority should be really disposed to exceed the proper limits, the community will be warned of the danger, and will have an opportunity of taking measures to guard against it. . . .

Hey Lux, no constitutional Crisis, stop saying there would be one. Enough. This Congress needs no more excuses.

What is clear is that all this legal and political tapdancing gets us nowhere. To end the war, the Congress can do one of two things, or preferably both: it can repeal the Iraq AUMF, and/or it can refuse to fund the war. This sophistry from Democrats, politicians, pundits and legal scholars, does neither us nor our principles credit.

< Guantanamo Detainee David Hicks Charged With Terror Crime | Obama Gets Punked On Iraq >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The only constitutions that would suffer a crisis (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:20:46 PM EST
    would be the constitutions of the spineless, and the warmongers.

    BTD (none / 0) (#2)
    by TexDem on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:07:32 PM EST
    Check talkleft email, I just sent you two in care of  talkleft@aol.com


    Gen Wesley Clark (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peaches on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:59:11 PM EST
    Makes these points about defunding the war and much more today on Democracy Now! I encourage people to read this interview with Amy Goodman. There is a lot of good information on Watada, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.

    The real danger is, and one of the reasons this is so complicated is because -- let's say we did follow the desires of some people who say, "Just pull out, and pull out now." Well, yeah. We could mechanically do that. It would be ugly, and it might take three or four months, but you could line up the battalions on the road one by one, and you could put the gunners in the Humvees and load and cock their weapons and shoot their way out of Iraq. You'd have a few roadside bombs. But if you line everybody up there won't be any roadside bombs. Maybe some sniping. You can fly helicopters over, do your air cover. You'd probably get safely out of there. But when you leave, the Saudis have got to find someone to fight the Shias. Who are they going to find? Al-Qaeda, because the groups of Sunnis who would be extremists and willing to fight would probably be the groups connected to al-Qaeda. So one of the weird inconsistencies in this is that were we to get out early, we'd be intensifying the threat against us of a super powerful Sunni extremist group, which was now legitimated by overt Saudi funding in an effort to hang onto a toehold inside Iraq and block Iranian expansionism. ...: I think Congress should take a strong stand to get the strategy changed. I don't think that if you cut off funding for the war, it's in the -- right now that's not in the United States' interest. What is in the United States' interest is to change the strategy in the war. You cannot succeed by simply stopping the funding and saying, "You've got six months to get the Americans out." That's not going to end the misery in Iraq. It's not going to restore the lives that have been lost. And it's not going to give us the power in the region to prevent later threats.
    What we do have to do is have a strategy that uses all the elements of America's power: diplomatic, economic, legal and military. I would send a high-level diplomatic team into the region right now. I'd have no-holds-barred and no-preconditioned discussion with Iran and Syria. And I would let it be known that I've got in my bag all the tricks, including putting another 50,000 troops in Iraq and pulling all 150,000 troops out. And we're going to reach an agreement on a statement of principles that brings stability and peace and order to the region. So let's just sit down and start doing it. Now, that could be done with the right administrative leadership. It just hasn't been done.


    Thanks Peaches (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:05:28 PM EST
    Great Interview.

    Parent
    Peaches (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:47:34 PM EST
    And I would let it be known that I've got in my bag all the tricks, including putting another 50,000 troops in Iraq and pulling all 150,000 troops out. And we're going to reach an agreement on a statement of principles that brings stability and peace and order to the region. So let's just sit down and start doing it. Now, that could be done with the right administrative leadership. It just hasn't been done.

    Actually, a good idea. The problem is that the Demos have sold the terrorists with the idea that the US can be forced out, and the Demos will help them.

    With that, any threat of more troops, etc.,is toothless, DOA, etc., etc.

    Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, said before the 2006 vote: "Americans should vote Democratic," adding that "it is time the American people support those who want to take them out of the Iraqi mud." The statement could have come from Murtha, Kerry, Hillary or any number of Democrats.


    Parent
    We could (none / 0) (#4)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:54:21 PM EST
    have had Clark, but a consortium of U. of Chicago ideologues with numbered Swiss bank accounts, ex-ceo/insiders, and nutball fundamentalists seemed like such a better idea.


    I forgot (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:04:10 PM EST
    the coke-addled, aristo-inbred who cant string two coherent sentences together in a choreographed press conmference.

    calm down btd (none / 0) (#8)
    by orionATL on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 09:53:28 PM EST
    calm down, btd.

    the congress could "attack" the bush administration head on, as your post implies.

    but they would then have to spend weeks - precious weeks - and make many multiples of appearances on talk shows, explaining what they had not said or implied and hwo their intrentins were in fact good (reference the enduring plague of demands for "apologies" from politicians for comments made - from kerry to mccain, and lots in between.)

    i think the sensible way for the democrats in congress to attack the war is not to make a frontal attack on the administration, but to spend the next few months, or next two years, documenting  the incompetence (e.g., walter reed, armor for troops) and dishonesty (e.g., reason to invade iraq, public assessments about the current state of affairs in iraq, mishandling of iran diplomacy , corruption in the american "rebuilding" effort, etc).

    there is a saying in poetry: don't tell them; show them. don't tell them someone is crying (for a loved one lost in iraq, maybe); just paint a picture, in words, of that grief; the reader will redraw the picture in her own mind.

    let ordinary folk watch and read about congressional investigations and draw their own conclusions about the bush administration's conduct of the invasion, about the destruction of civil authority in iraq, and about the ensuing civil war that american soldiers are trying to survive in.

    and keep in mind:

    the bush presidency  is dissolving!!

    it has no political WILL to thrive, none whatsoever.

    it has no policy adaptations, no political leadership, and no plans for america's future.

    the bush presidency is dying for the same reason it failed to meet even one of our nation's domestic or foreign policy needs -

    president bush does not know how to lead.

    so my view is that there is no need for the congressional democrats to give the bush administration any oxygen by attacking, head on,  the iraq invasion and its aftermath.

    just use the issues that arise out of six years of incompetent governance to paint a picture for us ordinary americans.

    and be sure those pictures get lots of public attention.

    give the country the info from congressional investigations and let the country do the rest.

    any yes, sooner or later there WILL be a constitutional crisis triggered by bush's behavior.

    sooner or later we will have to take to the streets.

    at the moment, however, the democratic controlled congress can best serve the nation not by taking a grand stance on iraq, but simply by persisting in subpoenaing present and former officials to testify under oath about what they did and who ordered them to do it.

    patience, lad, patience.