Have certain parts of the
Constitution become irrelevant, as a former Republican leader once told me at
a Foreign Affairs Committee hearing? At the time, I was told that demanding a
Congressional declaration of war before invading Iraq, as Article I Section 8
of the Constitution requires, was unnecessary and anachronistic. Congress and
the president then proceeded without a Constitutional declaration and the disastrous
Iraq invasion was the result.
Last week, Obama
administration officials made it clear that even the fig leaf of
Congressional participation provided by the 2003 "authorization" to
use force in Iraq was to be ignored as well. In a hearing before the Senate
Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated clearly and
repeatedly that the administration felt it was legally justified to use
military force against Syria solely with "international
permission". Such "international permission" could come by way
of the United Nations, NATO, or some other international body. Secretary
Panetta then told Senator Sessions that depending on the situation, the
administration would consider informing Congress of its decision and might
even seek authorization after the fact.
While Senator Sessions
expressed surprise at the casual audacity of Panetta in making this
statement, in reality his was just a bluntly stated explanation of what has
been, de facto, the case for many years. When President Obama committed the
US military to a pre-emptive war against Libya last year, for example,
Congress was kept completely out of the process. Likewise, military action in
Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and so on, proceed without a Congressional
declaration. In fact, we haven't had a proper, constitutional declaration of
war since 1942, yet the US military has been engaged in Korea, Lebanon, Iraq,
Bosnia, Liberia, Haiti, and Libya with only UN resolutions as the authority.
Congress's only role has been authorizing funds, which it always does without
question, because one must "support the troops".
Of course we should reserve
our harshest criticism for Congress rather than the Administration. If the
people's branch of government abrogates its Constitutional authority to the
Executive branch, who is to blame? Who is to blame that Congress as a body
will not stand up and demand that the president treat the Constitution as
more than an anachronistic piece of paper, or merely a set of aspirations and
guidelines? The Constitution is the law of the land and for Congress to allow
it to be flouted speaks as badly about Congress as it does about a president
who seeks to do the flouting.
Just last week the
administration announced that it would begin providing material support to
the rebels who seek to overthrow the Syrian government. Was Congress involved
in this decision to take sides in what may develop into a full-fledged civil
war? And what of reports that US special forces may already be operating
inside Syria? Still, Congress sits silently as its authority is undermined.
Does anybody really wonder why approval numbers for Congress are so low?
Many of my colleagues who
stood by as then-President Bush used the military as a kind of king's army
are now calling for Congress to act against this president for openly
admitting that is his intent. I agree it is time for Congressional action in
response to these attacks on our Constitution, but the solution is simple and
Constitutional. The solution is simply voting to withhold funds, since
Congress has the power of the purse. No money for undeclared wars!