In 1941, the First War Powers Act was passed, which granted the President a great deal of additional power. This was deemed necessary at the time because of the threat of Germany and Japan. It was passed less than two weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and gave the President extensive power, including the right to claim just about any property that the Federal Government might decide they need for a military or naval base, as well as giving him a lot of power to reorganize, create, move, and control Federal Departments that now reported directly to the Executive Branch.
Just a few months later, the Second War Powers Act was passed. This act was even worst. It suspended some of the rights of foreign born citizens that had been granted just a couple years earlier, in 1939, by the Hatch Act, and made confidential census data available to the FBI, which eventually lead to the imprisonment of thousands of American Citizens of Japanese decent being locked away in “internment camps” to prevent sabotage and terroristic acts on US soil.
Fast forward to 1973. After many, many, many military “encounters” through the intervening decades, Congress decides it is time to try to rope in the President a little so he can’t just be a cowboy whenever he feels like it. So they pass the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which Nixon promptly vetoes. That didn’t sit well with a Congress who was sick and tired of war, and looking to regain a little control over the matter. The veto was tossed out by the House, then by the Senate, and the bill was passed into law by the override of Congress.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 limits the President to only taking military actions at the direction of Congress (remember, according to the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war, raise and fund and army, control funding for the war or military action, and pass any laws regarding the manner in which the war is to be Conducted – the President commands the military, and is the de-facto head of the Armed Forces – the Congress is in charge of what constitutes a legal order from the President) OR during a “national emergency created by an attack against the United States, its territories or possessions, or its military forces”. Therefore, unless we are attacked, the President cannot order military action without the Congress authorizing it.
Additionally, the President is required to notify Congress within 48 hours of any action that he orders taken, and no military action may last longer than 60 days, with an additional 30 days granted for an orderly withdrawal, without the authorization of Congress. All of these are well within the Constitutional constraints that Congress (supposedly) operates under.
Regardless, every President since Nixon has declared the constraints to be unconstitutional, and there is, of course, some argument about it. Of course, that’s immaterial, as it’s still the law, and unless someone would like to challenge it before the Supreme Court, it’s not likely to ever be slackened. That won’t stop a determined President from doing as he damned well pleased, thought. Clinton ignored it when he bombed Kosovo in 1999, GW Bush ignored it when he ordered drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, and naturally Dear Ruler Obama ignored it in 2011 when he decided to enforce a UN no-fly zone over Libya without Congressional approval.
So what is the purpose of Congress making laws reinforcing their Constitutional powers, limiting the actions that President can take to what is is supposed to be under the Constitution, and then not bothering to enforce those laws against the President when he decides to ignore them? The law was passed for a reason. If the President chooses to ignore it, he should be impeached, immediately for breaking the law, failure to uphold his oath of office, failure to defend the Constitution, and Treason against the citizens and States of the United States of America.
Why do we have laws that limit the power or Presidents if they can ignore those laws and do as they wish? That’s not a President, that’s a Dictator. Benevolent or not, that’s evil.
Very informative, well written post. I was thinking the same thing. Unfortunately, as it is now, the Supreme Court won't do anything about it, those liberals would love to toss out the constitution altogether if they could. So, since they can't outright abolish it, they simply interpret it in a way that fits their socialist agenda, and that of the current president. Too bad supreme court justices don't have term limits. Unless they choose to retire or are forced to resign, they hold that position for life. Changing presidents won't change the makeup of the Supreme Court, and they ultimately hold the power to decide what is constitutional or not, by THEIR interpretation.
ReplyDeleteThank you Siggy. Tell your friends. :)
ReplyDelete