Impeachability
It appears that the revolutionary vanguard of the anti-war movement, International ANSWER, is pressing for the impeachment of the President for "war crimes and crimes against humanity." More respectable and credible authorities, including the redoubtable Lewis Lapham of Harpers' Magazine, have been calling for impeachment, but in (slightly) less hysterical terms, grounded in an alleged abuse of executive authority.
I was just talking to a friend about presidential impeachment. We were actually talking about what the Congress can do, meaningfully, to check the power of the President in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
He was very keen on the purse-strings argument: that the Congress can simply refuse to appropriate funds for the military. I contended that while this is a practical check, it ducks the fundamental question of authority.
We can say that the President is acting wholly within his authority as authorized by Congress in the resolution authorizing military action against Iraq: acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-243, Sec. 3, 116 Stat. 1497-1502 (2002).
If the Congress were to pass any resolution effectively limiting the scope of this prior authorization, and if the President (in his self-declared capacity as "The Decider") insisted in prosecuting the war in a manner inconsistent with the authority granted to him by the Congress, then I contend that the Congress could--and probably should--impeach the President for acting outside his constitutional authority.
If the Congress passes no such resolution, the President will have dodged a bullet, or the nation will be spared a constitutional showdown on the separation of powers.
It seems unlikely that any such resolution will pass, of course. But unless the Congress is willing to draw a line in the sand regarding the conduct and scope of the war, all of the Congressional complaints about the progress of the war are futile whining. Certainly, the Congress can act to limit funding for the war--but as we are already beginning to hear form the White House, to do so would be to deny vital arms, armor, and supplies to brave American sons and daughters in combat. No member of Congress is going to want to face a constituent and tell him, honestly, that he willingly voted to deny the funding that might have deflected the piece of shrapnel that killed that constituent's son.
In other political communities, this situation has played out to the advantage of the executive branch. The need to support the nation's sons, nobly sacrificing for the good of all, is a powerful rallying cry. It is very easily used to concentrate power in the executive, ultimately to no good end. Americans have been fortunate never to have been exposed to the real ugliness of unchecked executive power. Perhaps now is a good time to remind them why.
I was just talking to a friend about presidential impeachment. We were actually talking about what the Congress can do, meaningfully, to check the power of the President in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
He was very keen on the purse-strings argument: that the Congress can simply refuse to appropriate funds for the military. I contended that while this is a practical check, it ducks the fundamental question of authority.
We can say that the President is acting wholly within his authority as authorized by Congress in the resolution authorizing military action against Iraq: acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-243, Sec. 3, 116 Stat. 1497-1502 (2002).
If the Congress were to pass any resolution effectively limiting the scope of this prior authorization, and if the President (in his self-declared capacity as "The Decider") insisted in prosecuting the war in a manner inconsistent with the authority granted to him by the Congress, then I contend that the Congress could--and probably should--impeach the President for acting outside his constitutional authority.
If the Congress passes no such resolution, the President will have dodged a bullet, or the nation will be spared a constitutional showdown on the separation of powers.
It seems unlikely that any such resolution will pass, of course. But unless the Congress is willing to draw a line in the sand regarding the conduct and scope of the war, all of the Congressional complaints about the progress of the war are futile whining. Certainly, the Congress can act to limit funding for the war--but as we are already beginning to hear form the White House, to do so would be to deny vital arms, armor, and supplies to brave American sons and daughters in combat. No member of Congress is going to want to face a constituent and tell him, honestly, that he willingly voted to deny the funding that might have deflected the piece of shrapnel that killed that constituent's son.
In other political communities, this situation has played out to the advantage of the executive branch. The need to support the nation's sons, nobly sacrificing for the good of all, is a powerful rallying cry. It is very easily used to concentrate power in the executive, ultimately to no good end. Americans have been fortunate never to have been exposed to the real ugliness of unchecked executive power. Perhaps now is a good time to remind them why.