Authorization or Declaration?
Jim Babka on Jun 18th 2008
Is an Authorization for the Use of Military Force the same thing as a Declaration of War? Were the authorizations ultimately written, for both the war on terror and the war in Iraq, reinforcements for the constitution’s separation of powers? Is the debate on this issue mere semantics that could easily be fixed by using the word “war” instead of “the use of military force?”
No. No. And, No.
Declarations of war are specific and limited commands to use force until a specific objective has been completed. What was, for example, the objective in Iraq? How will we know that we’ve won the war on terror?
I wrote about the importance of an actual Declaration of War at length back in January.
But a few points which may not have been crystal clear in that piece should be made here:
1. The command is given by the legislative branch to the Executive branch. And had that been done in Iraq, it would be a simple matter for Congress to declare victory and/or conclude a military campaign.
But Congress doesn’t and it can’t conclude this war, because they didn’t declare war, they delegated their authority. And many Constitutional scholars (and members of Congress) believe all that the Congress can do at this point is defund the troops. Yeah, right! And pigs are going to fly.
2. The Congress told the President he had discretion. Discretion — whether to attack or not — was a power given to the Congress by the People. They didn’t give it to the President and they couldn’t, unless the Constitution was amended, and I just missed the news.
Because they gave him discretion, the likes of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton were able to question how the President conducted this war, and say, “I would’ve never done it that way.”
To all the “patriots” out there that “support the troops,” this was the dumbest thing you could’ve done. You gave the President’s opponents an out. Congress basically voted to say, “We’re not responsible,” and then proceeded to act that way.
Every member of Congress, in an hour where young lives are going to be committed and some will surely die, must be on record, for or against. They must take responsibility for the decision they have made. They should not be able to hand it off.
3. And further, for obvious reasons, it should be the branch that’s closest to the parents of those young men and women serving, that makes such a decision.
4. So ask yourself, why does our government send our military personnel hither and yon, without declaring wars? What political advantage did the politicians find in these two instances for violating our Constitution?
I think if you endeavor to answer this question honestly you’ll find that our War on a Tactic and our War on a Nation that Never Attacked Us (both) failed to meet the test of a true war, and further that the Executive Branch wanted unlimited power, and that the Congress obliged so as to wash its hands of the consequences if things went badly. These two “wars” are not really wars, but completely anti-constitutional behavior, unchecked by any branch — a total failure of the founder’s brilliant system.
Filed in The Barracks, The Bureau
A chief distinction between a republic and an empire is that in the former matters of war and peace rest in the hands of the people or their representatives and in the latter they are vested in the awesome, pompous office of one little man.