Jewish World Review April 24, 2002 /13 Iyar, 5762
Bush, congress and war on Iraq
President Bush's repeated statements that the United States will not tolerate the development or possession of "weapons of mass destruction" by Iraq has created a general expectation that sooner or later he intends to take direct military action against Saddam Hussein.
He seems to be justifying such potential action in advance as a mere extension of his war on terrorism authorized by Congress only days after the Sept. 11 attacks.
But that approval specified that the president could use force only against "nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks ... or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism" by them.
In other words, to depend on that congressional action Bush would have to establish that Iraq and its dictator played a role in the Sept. 11 assaults or provided a haven for those who did. If he could not, defenders of Congress' constitutional role to declare war argue, he would have to come back to Congress for authorization to initiate hostile action.
With this potential circumstance in mind, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) called in a panel of experts the other day to examine the scope of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, under which Congress approved the war on terrorism, and the chief executive's war powers under the Constitution.
Feingold said he did not intend to raise the specific question of a potential U.S. attack on Iraq, but some panelists did generally comment on it, reinforcing Feingold's view that Congress cannot be bypassed in initiating a war.
But speaking for the administration without referring to Iraq, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo said the president could act, under his constitutional powers, without congressional authorization, though he would prefer to have it.
Yoo cited the Supreme Court's calling the president "the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations" and noted his constitutional role as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. These provisions, he said, "give the president the constitutional authority to introduce U.S. armed forces into hostilities when appropriate, with or without specific congressional authorization."
Feingold clearly had trouble with that view. So did Georgetown Law Professor Jane Stromseth, saying the framers of the Constitution intended Congress "to decide, to make a choice, about whether the United States should go to war; it was not a formalistic power to simply validate that a legal state of war existed."
The Constitution, she argued, "gave Congress the power to declare war because the founders believed such a significant decision should be made not by one person, but by the legislature as a whole, to ensure careful deliberation by the people's elected representatives and broad national support before the country embarked on a course so full of risks."
She cited James Madison's observation in 1793: "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
Others on the panel discussed the doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense," wherein Bush could argue that every nation has the right to defend itself under attack, and that the development or possession of weapons of mass destruction by a hostile country would justify not waiting for an attack using such weapons.
Feingold said he intended to explore the matter further. As for You, he said after the hearing that the administration has "independent authority (to wage war) under the Constitution, but we would be willing to act with congressional support."
This is an issue that cries out for further exploration now, before the president confronts Congress with a fait accompli in an unauthorized attack on Iraq of indeterminate
Comment on JWR contributor Jules Witcover's column by clicking here.
04/19/02: What makes Reno run?
04/17/02: Dems' open season on Bush
04/15/02: Election reform at hand
04/12/02: Bush's vacillations
04/10/02: Gubernatorial olympics in Massachusetts
04/08/02: N.H.: Another political third rail
04/01/02: Energy: corporate or political scandal?
03/27/02: Targeting the Federal Election Commission
03/25/02: Campaign finance reform irony
03/20/02: The allure and curse of politics
03/18/02: Political junkies convention
03/15/02: Gore re-enters the arena
03/13/02: Reconsidering presidential succession
03/11/02: Murmurs of a war protest
03/04/02: Dems question expanding, paying for the war
03/01/02: More questions about historians' credibility
02/28/02: Early warning on bio-terrorism
02/25/02: Bush rhetoric, at home and abroad
02/22/02: Strategic influence or strategic deception?
02/20/02: Challenging Gore for 2004
02/19/02: Just a beginning on campaign finance reform'
02/13/02: Taking 'the Fifth'
02/11/02: Campaign finance reform showdown
02/08/02: Dems need a Truman
02/06/02: The Bush budget: Reality replaces poetry
02/04/02: Going after the Axis of Evil --- or not
02/01/02: Bush keeps Dems on ropes
01/30/02: White House task force secrecy
01/25/02: A politically poisonous congressional session
01/23/02: Whither AlGore?
01/21/02: In search of … Tom Ridge
01/18/02: Kennedy takes on the tax fight
01/16/02: On the departure of high government officials
01/11/02: The lobbyist as party chairman
01/07/02: Torricelli's clean bill of health
12/12/01: The elevated vice presidency
12/07/01: September 11th and December 7th
12/05/01: Another children's crusade
12/03/01: Stall on campaign finance reform
11/30/01: Stall on campaign finance reform
11/28/01: More Justice Department folly
11/26/01: Ashcroft still under fire
11/21/01: Normalcy vs. security at the White House
11/12/01: Bush's latest pep talk
11/07/01: The blame game on airport security
11/05/01: Bellwether gubernatorial elections?
11/02/01: Feingold's complaint
10/31/01: Putting the cart before the horse?
10/29/01: Show business on economic stimulus
10/26/01: No political business as usual
10/24/01: Senatorial bravado
10/22/01: Split decision on gun rights
10/16/01: New York mayor's race: What kind of experience?
10/15/01: New York: Making a comeback
10/11/01: Giuliani: Fly in the election ointment
10/08/01: One or two New Yorks?
10/05/01: Providing your own security
10/01/01: Getting back to 'normal'
09/28/01: Muzzling the Voice Of America
09/26/01: Bush's transformation
09/24/01: Using a tragedy for a federal bailout
09/21/01: A view of tragedy at home from abroad
09/14/01: Script for AlGore's coming-out party
08/31/01: Scandal and privacy in politics
08/24/01: On replacing Helms
08/22/01: Politics takes a summer holiday
08/15/01: The resurfacing of AlGore
08/13/01: You can go home again
08/10/01: Governors' Conference drought
08/08/01: Governors defend their turf
08/06/01: New Bush muscle with congress
08/03/01: America's benign neglect
07/30/01: Where is the fear factor?
07/26/01: Dubya, Nancy Reagan and the Pope
07/23/01: Bush's congressional dilemma
07/19/01: Katharine Graham, giant
07/11/01: Finessing election reform
07/09/01: Listening to, and watching, Ashcroft
07/06/01: New comedian in the House (of Representatives)
06/27/01: Spinning Campaign Finance Reform's latest 'headway'
06/25/01: When Dubya says 'the check is in the mail,' you can believe him
06/22/01: The push on patients' rights
06/20/01: If you can't trust historians, how can you trust history?
06/18/01: World Refugee Day
06/13/01: Remembering 'Hubert'
06/11/01: Ventura faces government shutdown
06/06/01: McCain doth protest too much
06/04/01: Memo to the Bush daughters
05/30/01: Missing in action: Democratic outrage
05/30/01: Honoring World War II vets
05/23/01: Lauding the Nixon pardon
05/21/01: Messin' with McCain
05/18/01: A great movie plot
05/16/01: The level of public sensibility these days
05/14/01: "I am Al Gore. I used to be the next president of the United States"
© 2001, TMS