Slashdot Mirror
US Presidents on Presidential Power
Tod Landis writes "Responding to George Bush's statement that he will preserve executive power for his "predecessors", I've assembled a
collection of quotes from those predecessors. Most saw executive power differently..."
These quotes seem to suggest it's unconstitutional for anyone other than Congress to declare war.
Congress still has (and did have) the right to declare war, and they turned it over to Bush to use at his disposal. (In theory, at least, I don't think he actually declared anything.)
Why not a collection of quotes about how Congresspeople are lemmings?
gears? we don't need no stinking gears.
This article has nothing to do with "executive power".
The President has the power to write "Executive Orders". These were meant to be used as quick action rules to act on certain situations before congress and the Senate could debate and decide on a proper strategy (because committees are slow).
Congress has been trying to restrict those abilities and THAT'S what Bush is defending.
WAR POWERS (which W is NOT talking about in his quote) are a still hotly debated topic. Executive Orders can be used to facilitate combat (as has been done with Iraq) but the President has combat powers above and beyond the Executive Orders so restricting those doesn't necessarily stop the other.
Bush is not the first to have done this. Clinton did it with Bosnia, Bush Sr. did it with Panama, Reagan did it with Grenada, etc;
The whole power structure of wars, waging wars, military action, etc is still a hotly debated topic in congress and this article does no justice in bringing out the real issues.
OK, in the case of Bush Jr, Congress gave him the power to wage war in Iraq. Here are some examples of "war" that wasn't declared by Congress.
Eisenghower - Korea
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon - Vietnam
Reagan - Greneda
Clinton - Bosnia
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
They did not tell Bush to go after anyone. They gave them the authority to declare war if he felt it was needed. If he did, then he had to justify going to war to congress.
/
:)
From http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.
They wanted a diplomatic solution before war and they wanted to make sure the invasion wouldn't disrupt the war on terror.
This happened on Oct 11, 2002. A month later The UN passed resolution 1441 with tough new arms inspections on Iraq.
Dec 7, 2002 Iraq submitted its 12,000 page report that says they had no weapons.
Jan. 16, 2003 UN inspectors discover 11 undeclared empty chemical warheads in Iraq.
Feb. 22, 2003 Hans Blix orders Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles by March 1.
March 1, 2003 Iraq begins to destroy its Al Samoud missiles.
(kinda like telling your kid "I'm going to count to 5" and watching then scurry when you say FIVE!"
Feb. 24-March 14, 2003 The US tried and failed to get UN support to invade Iraq.
March 19, 2003 US invades Iraq.
As you can see, it took 5 months from the time Bush was authorized to invade to the time he actually did invade. If he had invaded within a couple weeks of the authorization then it would be a totally different story. I'm not trying to say it was right or wrong to invade, but the facts say that Bush did have the choice whether to invade or not.
Whether it was right or wrong won't be known until the history books are written that our grandkids and greatgrandkids use in school.
Here is the full text of the quote from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010129-7 .html:
Q: Why did you decide not to challenge the Clinton pardon, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, on Marc Rich? First of all, I didn't agree with the decision. I would not have made that decision myself. But the ability for a president to make decisions is -- a decision on pardons, is inviolate, as far as I'm concerned. It's an important part of the office. I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well. And that's why I made the decision.
Learning Disability != moron, it just appears so. And it's more the editors than the actual people who read slashdot.
Finally, when the new Politics Forum was announced, it was promised that the editors would be Fair and Balanced (tm, Fox News). Five pro-Kerry stories to every pro-Bush story is not balanced, no matter how you look at it.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Truman presided over the first major armed conflict that did not involve a declaration of war, by convening a UN security council meeting and immediately committing troops to the conflict. This after the secretary of state declaring the Korea really did not fall into the US's "sphere of protection" in the east-asian region.
Truman also first got the country involved in Vietnam, after the French got over their heads in the conflict and asked the US for help. By 1954, 80% of the war costs were borne the the US.
Vietnam became a major conflict during Johnson's administration, as he reinstated the draft and dramatically increased the commitment of troops.
WWII was the last US conflict that involved a formal declaration of war by congress. IMHO, it should not be OK for a president to commit troops to ANY conflict outside of our own borders without a declaration of war from congress. Don't expect ANY president to follow this doctrine.
The Eisenhower quote is interesting, as he was the last president that recognized deploying troops without congressional authority was not intended by the constitution. He was the LAST president to recognize this (and probably always will be).
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
No, there is no question of this. The bill, signed in October 2002, authorized the President to use military force, explicitly.There was a question for whether this bill SHOULD authorize military force, but require the President to come back to Congress before using force. But that was decided against.
There is simply no question but that Congress authorized the President to use force against Iraq.
It is fair if it is true that there are five times as many good things to say about Kerry as there are good things to say about Bush.
And who makes that call? The election, by all scientific polling standards, is just about even at this point. Statements like this are what kill me about Democrats...they think that since THEY hate Bush so much, nobody has good reasons for voting for him.
On character alone I would vote for Bush because, while people love to criticize him on malapropisms, he's a regular guy, not some slick talking politician. Kerry's plan so far has been to promise things he can't pay for and doesn't detail how he'll implement. His war stance is, essentially, that he'll "stick it out" and "bring more countries in" to help us. How? I doubt that France and Germany are itching to jump in just because Bush is gone. He promises jobs based on reducing a corporate tax that affects less than 10% of businesses out there. The president has no real power over jobs, only by changing tax rates and incentives can they try to create jobs. It's really more a factor of the economy.
This is off the top of my head, because I get so steamed whenever people dismiss Bush like there's not reason to consider him. Right now, half the country thinks there is.
--trb
Actually, to be completely fair, it was Thomas Jefferson who first deployed U.S. troops without a declaration of war when he sent U.S. Marines and Naval vessels against North African pirates that were threatening U.S. shipping interests in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic.
Interestingly, it was Eisenhower who sent the first U.S. troops into Vietnam as advisers. Our first casualty came in 1959 during a training session for ARVN forces when some old and unstable explosives went off in the hands of a U.S. adviser.
It was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, an act of Congress, that much later authorized Johnson to expand the U.S. action in Vietnam.
On the point of the President not sending troops to foreign nations without Congressional approval, I agree.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.