crazytalk triptych

[solarbird]

Oh look, it's another installment of HAS EVERYONE GONE COMPLETELY INSANE?! It's mostly a set of quotes, all tied together into a neat. little. package. I hope you like it.

Part I:

The Constitution of the United States:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

[...]

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Part II:

Congress Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), on MSNBC last weekend, transcription excerpted from here:

Christ MATTHEWS (MSNBC): Right now, February 8, 2007, do you believe we should go to war with Iran?

Congressman Eric CANTOR (R-Virginia): I'll leave that decision up to the commanders on the ground and those in our military ...

MATTHEWS: Commanders on the ground ... whether we go to war with another country?

CANTOR: I will leave the decisions in the military arena to -- this is exactly the point.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you Congressman Cantor, very clearly, to clear up our discussion, if the U.S. Congress were to discuss tomorrow morning whether to declare war on Iran, would you vote yay?

CANTOR: This congress is not going to do that because it's the commander in chief's role, Chris, and Steve knows that as well. It's not Congress that will ask for that. It is the commander in chief that will make that decision. Every president whether republican or Republican or Democrat since the War Powers Act was in place has interpreted it as being the commander in chief's role to do that.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Congressman Israel, what's the role of Congress in war and peace?

Congressman Steve ISRAEL (D-NY): Congress under the Constitution of the United States authorizes war. The War Powers Act requires Congress to vote on whether we should insert troops into hostile situations. The law is clear.

CANTOR: Absolutely not.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Congressman Cantor, why did the president ask for approval of Congress before he went to Iraq?

CANTOR: I certainly think his counsel gave him guidance why he need to do that but the Constitution gives the commander in chief the right to send our troops into battle.

Part III:

And in case anybody out there hasn't read Section 2 lately:

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...

...which is not to say, "whenever the hell he feels like it."

---

The is an anti-Federalist nightmare come to life. This is one of the things they warned about. This is one of the things that the actual writers of the actual Constitution in their own actual words specifically said was not true, and you can read it in the Federalist papers if you want. Clearly, this jackass hasn't, and even if he did, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't care, because as far as I can tell, it is the position of the current chief executive's administration.

Virginia, I'm callin' you out. You gonna recall this jackass or what?

Comments

[banner.livejournal.com]

I know I'm gonna get slammed for this, but go re-read the constitution. While it says the Congress has the power to 'declare war', it never says anywhere what forms that declaration must take, nor is the term 'Declaration of War' anywhere in the document. It also does not bar the President from any military action, he just cannot 'declare war'.

This leaves a lot of room for Presidents to do a lot of things. Look at the previous administrations. Bush isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before.

If the President has to wait for Congressional authorization to be able to respond to an attack or protect American interests/lives, well then nothing would ever get done in time. If Congress feels that a President is sending troops where they shouldn't be going, it can either cut off funding, or it can impeach the President out of office. But running the military, the wars, and general foreign policy is the President's job and what the founders intended.

As for your second argument, well the military already has been called into service. Has been for over a hundred years now, as we have a standing army. I don't know what argument you're trying to make there, the President is always the commander in chief when the army exists (i.e. called into service).

Last of all, if a Congressman wants to leave a war decision up to a military commander, well he has the right to do that if he wants to. You may not think it's wise, I'm not sure I think it's wise. I suspect the Congressman was thinking 'attack' more than 'go to war', because Iran's actions already consitute an act of war. Whether or not we respond (and how) is the issue now. However the President is free at this point to respond as he sees fit to protect the lives of our soldiers.

[avram]

Re-read the "Part II" section above. This has nothing to do with Bush, it has to do with Cantor's gross misunderstanding of the Constitution. He's not deferring to the president's judgment, he's claiming that the president has a power that he does not have under the Constitution, and that Congress lacks a power that it has. Check out the bit where Congressman Israel correctly describes the legal situation, and Cantor replies "Absolutely not."

[banner.livejournal.com]

Actually he's making the argument that since the passage of the 'War Powers Act' that the Congress has surrendered it's role of declaring war to the President. That the President can do whatever they please as long as they honor that act.

I personally believe that the War Powers act is unconstitutional, because the Congress can make no law regarding the powers of the President, and neither can the Congress surrender its obligations to other branches of the Government.

[avram]

Except that has argument is still ridiculous. The War Powers Act requires the President to consult with Congress when US armed forces are involved in hostilities even when there isn't a declared war. That's why Nixon vetoed it back in '73, and that's why Cheney says the Act is an unconstitutional infringement on Presidential powers. In other words, the Act restricts Presidential powers, it doesn't expand them.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Actually it's extremely logical for an argument. Go read the act. If Congress thinks it can pass a law to do something it doesn't have the authority to do, I see no reason why you can't interpret it in other ways. If the President has 60 days to go to Congress, that means he can do whatever the heck he wants for those 60 days, right? Even an all out war?

Clinton BTW, violated the war powers act twice while in office. One thing about Clinton, when he knew he was right, he didn't mess around with BS.

[avram]

Again, re-read Cantor's words:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you Congressman Cantor, very clearly, to clear up our discussion, if the U.S. Congress were to discuss tomorrow morning whether to declare war on Iran, would you vote yay?

CANTOR: This congress is not going to do that because it's the commander in chief's role, Chris, and Steve knows that as well.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I of course agree with you. The Constitution is extremely clear here; it's not vague at all. The Congress, however, has, for the past 40-plus years, knuckled under to the Executive and refused to stand up for their own rights.

Alas, even if the people of Virginia stood up and tried to recall the idiot, I bet it wouldn't work. The Constitution says nothing about recall, so I expect that any congress-critter facing such election would tie the situation up in the courts for the duration of his term.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...

Incidentally, that last phrase ("when called...") has been held to apply only to the last clause ("the Militia"; nowadays the National Guard). For the Army and Navy, the President is always CinC.

OTOH, I think it's only been since Reagan that the military and President have traded salutes, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. Yes, it's only a symbol, but symbols are important, and the military is supposed to be always subservient to the civil authority, and that means the President is not a military officer. (It doesn't mean a military person can't be President, just that the office of President is not supposed to directly be a military position, even though the President can give the generals orders.) I guess that's a bit convoluted, but I hope you understand what I mean.

As I recall, the only President who was even close to being an active field military commander was Washington in the case of the Whiskey Rebellion.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Two quick notes. First the National Guard is not the Militia. Not under the law, not under the Consitution. Second Reagan was not the first President to salute. I know Carter did it a few times, I think Nixon and Johnson both did it at times too. I'm too young to remember if JFK ever did it, but I wouldn't be surprised if he also saluted.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

the National Guard is not the Militia. Not under the law, not under the [Constitution].

Then you're saying that the National Guard was not formed from the various state militias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard)? Or are you talking about the separate (and not regulated by the National Guard) state defense forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces)? (Which I must admit I'd never heard of until I started looking this up.)

And since Wikipedia isn't a reliable primary source, the National Guard's web site (http://www.ngb.army.mil/About/default.aspx) says:

In 1903, important national defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard (as the militia was now called) as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army.

Now "militia" as a generic term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia) is something else, but as far as I can tell from my reading of the law and practice, the bodies that used to be known as the "state militia" of the several US states are now those states' National Guard units, subject to call up and federal service.

But I'm not a military historian or a Radical Lunatic Libertarian, either, so I admit to not knowing everything there is to know about this.

[banner.livejournal.com]

While the National Guard was formed out of what was considered the Organized Militia, the National Guard is not the Militia. The Militia is defined as every able body man between the ages of 18 and 45.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

The Militia is defined as every able body man between the ages of 18 and 45.

Where is it so defined? Not in the Constitution. Is it statute or common law? I'm not trying to be confrontational; I'm genuinely curious.

[banner.livejournal.com]

I think it's in USC100.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Aha! Thank you; that's enough information for me to find it, and I should have thought of looking there before: It's Title 10(A)(I)(13)(311) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html).

The "organized militia" are the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" are all of the other able-bodied males ages 17-44 years old inclusive. (Because of the way the definition is written, females can't possibly be part of the "unorganized militia," only the organized one.)

So you're right in a technical sense, but the practical sense was what I was getting at -- in practice, only the "organized militia" is ever called out under Presidential authority, and the "organized militia" is the National Guard.

[avram]

If you want the period terminology, the Founders used "militia" pretty much like Banner does, and used "select militia" for what Banner's calling "organized militia", which became the National Guard.

Here, check out the text of The Militia Act of 1792.

[banner.livejournal.com]

in practice, only the "organized militia" is ever called out under Presidential authority,

Ummm no. Check out the Spanish American war. The unorganized Militia has been called up in the past.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I grant that you are technically correct. But hundred-year-ago wars aren't especially relevant today.

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

I disagree with Banner on the main point, but he's right about this. I once had someone tell me that "under no definition" was I a part of a militia. I went to his bookcase, got his (abridged, yet) dictionary and looked it up. The first definition included both of us.

The important thing about understanding the Constitution is determining the intent of the writers, which often requires knowledge of archaic terminology. However, taking "militia" to mean "every legally responsible, physically able adult" seems to still be valid today.

So basicly...

[kensaro.livejournal.com]

... everybody who can be drafted.

Re: So basicly...

[(Anonymous)]

Everyone who can reasonably be expected and trusted to physically help defend their country.

[tinlail.livejournal.com]

Wow a congressman in artfully dodges a question and it is a constitutional crisis

[firni.livejournal.com]

Is it proper to wear a business suit with tasseled loafers or not?

[tinlail.livejournal.com]

If you had the misfortune to be on Hardball the only appropriate answer to the question would be "fuck off".
Alas politician don't give honest answers anymore

[firni.livejournal.com]

Are rounded collars too dressy or too casual, and which tie knot looks best with them?

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

"Any more"?! Heh...

[solarbird]

I would suggest that strident argument over who has Constitutional authority to declare war on behalf of the country is awfully close to a Constitutional crisis. Meanwhile, this clown can't seem to decide whether it's the military or the chief executive, both of which were absolutely constrained from doing that by the authors of the Constitution.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

It's ironic because on one hand Congress complains about the power grab from the executive branch and yet here's an area where they clearly do have the power, and they basically cede it to the President and throw up their hands. I think they want the power as long as it doesn't require any hard decisions that might lose them elections. (and I mean that for both Democrats and Republicans)

[solarbird]

One of the many reasons - actually, a big reason - I oppose any expansions of executive power at this point is precisely because it never, never goes away. Or at least has not done so in my political lifetime, and not significantly in the modern era, and I don't honestly expect any backflow of that power any time soon without very, very ugly steps between here and there.