srsly

[rmd]

"In recent years, Congress has proven less than vigorous in carrying out its constitutional duties pertaining to the military, creating what is essentially a constitutional void. For instance, the function of declaring war is vested in Congress with good reason. It is an expression of public support for the most momentous decision a nation will make; it ensures that the rationale for going to war and the policy goals sought by this decision are clearly defined. And yet not since World War II has Congress exercised its constitutional duty of declaring war."

fucking unary executive theory my ass.

Comments

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

Congress's failure to retake that power--the declaration of war--from the President infuriates me. It is one of many reasons I find them a bunch of lily-livered, yellow-bellied cowards.

[lioritgioret.livejournal.com]

Crap. I didn't realize this had continued. Back in the Vietnam days it was regarded as somehow unique and damning -- "prosecuting an undeclared war", etc. -- so I kind of figured they would not do it again.

Plus, this quote really makes me think about how Congress has abdicated in many other ways, and become sort of the fiddly bookkeeping branch of government rather than legislative. Back when I was writing about Medicare a lot I was introduced to the concept "administrative law", wherein Congress cedes the decisions to agencies. There are areas where it makes sense, but it also provides extensive cover for the ducking of responsibility.

So thanks for the wake-up.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

There are two flavors of this. One of them doesn't suck: Since WW II there has been a feeling that a straight-out declaration of war meant total war, war of national annihilation. So Congress passes "authorizations for the use of force". In that regard, Congress is doing its job, because they actually do debate the matter, despite the euphemism. In that regard, Congress did its job in regard to the Iraq War (whether or not you agree with its decision).

The less pleasant side are all the quasi-wars and intermittent military actions the President takes without official approval by Congress. (E.g., someone tallied that the Clinton administration did a military action every nine weeks on the average.) These are done under the excuse of the War Powers Act, which is probably unconstitutional on its face. But as the editorialists have noted, Congress doesn't want to take responsibility for either approving or denying requests to use force, and the President doesn't want to have to get Congress' permission, so both sides are happy with the situation.