A Constitution to “Chain the Dogs of War”
Two-hundred and twenty years ago this week, the patriots who had stuck through the long process of drafting a Constitution for the new United States finally approved the document. The primary purpose of their creation was, in the language of their time, to “chain the dogs of war.”
The American colonies has suffered the cruel fates of wars plotted and pursued by the royal families of distant Europe, and they set about to assure that the nation they had freed from the grip of British imperialism would not, itself, be subjected to the imperial whims of presidents who might someday imagine themselves to be kings.
“The executive should be able to repel and not to commence war,” explained Roger Sherman, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Connecticut, who moved to make clear the intent of the founders that nothing in their exposition of the powers of the executive branch should be conceived as authorizing the president to “make war.” An executive could assume the mantle of commander-in-chief only when it was necessary to defend the country; never to wage kingly wars of whim.
Sherman’s resolution was approved overwhelmingly by the Philadelphia convention that finished its work September 17, 1787.
George Mason, the Virginia delegate who was the strongest advocate for restraint on the executive, summed up the sentiments of the delegates when he said: “I am for clogging rather than facilitating war.”
So was the Constitution defined. Indeed, in arguing for its ratification, Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson explained, “This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important part in declaring war is vested in the legislature at large.”
The procedures are clearly outlined. Wars must be declared by the houses of Congress. And the power to continue any war is rested entirely in the funding authority that is given Congress. The president does not enjoy the privilege of declaring or maintaining a war. He is merely a manager of military affairs in a time of conflict; and even in that he is required to defer on matters of consequence to the Congress.
This, we know, to be the law of the land.
Yet, as we mark the 220th anniversary of the Constitution, more than 160,000 young Americans are mired in the quagmire of an undeclared war in Iraq. More than 3,700 of them have died already, and the toll expands on a daily basis - as does the rate at which innocent Iraqis are killed, maimed and rendered homeless. More than $200 million is extracted from the federal treasury each day to pay for this war, despite the fact that it is, by any Constitutional standard, entirely illegitimate.
The founders would not question for a moment that the Congress has the authority to use the power of the purse to end this war. Indeed, they would argue today as they did in their time, that a failure to do so would imperil the Republic.
But the founders would be even more worried about the precedent set by the current president’s seizure of ungranted authority for warmaking and so much else, and they would remind us, as George Mason did, that with regard to the Constitution: “No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued.”
The voters dealt with last fall with the Republican Congress that had collaborated with Bush to thwart the rule of law. The unfortunate reality of the moment is that a Democratic Congress that was elected to restore a measure of balance to the federal stage has responded to necessity with caution. But that does not change the eternal reality of the Republic, which is that this “opposition” Congress has a simple, basic, yet essential Constitutional duty. Members of the House and Senate must impeach and try a president who is assaulting the most basic precepts of the American experiment. Anything less is a mockery of the document they swear an oath to defend - and an invitation to this and future presidents to further unchain the dogs of war that the founders struggled so mightily to contain.
John Nichols’ new book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson hails it as a “nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the ‘heroic medicine’ that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to ‘reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.’”
Copyright © 2007 The Nation
Americans keep repeating the same behavior expecting different results.
As long as Americans feel they are winners, it really does not matter what America does.
Almost every country in the Americas has been plundered through the use of the US of A’s military force. Let’s mention the rest of the world and it is the same story.
In Iraq the US of A spent the blood of its soldiers and the blood of Iraqi citizens (hundreds of thousands that were children) and a trillion dollars to assure oil company profits.
When will the Americans wake up to the fact this behavior has destroyed its democracy.
“What I have been trying to say to intellectuals, preachers, scientists -as well as more generally to publics- can be put into one sentence: Drop the liberal rhetoric and the conservative default, they are now parts of one and the same official line; transcend that line”. C. Wright Mills
Repeating the same behaviour and expecting a different result…..Isn’t that the definition of INSANITY? LOL I guess Americans are all insane! No news there. Their school system and great propaganda machine ensures that they remain insane, and do not ever dare to think for themselves to resolve any issue. Insanity is a major part of American “culture.”
My feeling, all along, has been that since Bush pushed us, illegally and deceitfully, into an unnecessary invasion and “war” (and I use the term loosely, since it’s really an occupation), that he and his administration should be made accountable for this horrific and unconstitutional threat to the American people. Since he “broke it”, the only legitimate restitution is that he “fix it”. Only impeachment (and more ideally, conviction and removal from office) will clear the stench of illegitimacy that this government has created since initially placed into office by a flippant decision made in haste by the highest court in the land. Impeachment is the only way towards “fixing” this.
Impeachment, through discovery, will clearly tell a story about how and why this administration started an aggression. It will contain other sub-plots about indefinite detention and torture and the means of repression here at home, including the suppression of dissent. It will make it clear to future administrations, that the American people elect, that they will not be able to break or impede the constraints of the balanced branches of government, which our founders so necessarily fought for.
Been a lot of saliva and hot air spent talking about impeachment. Seems that the idea is not acceptable to those who seek to profit through their love of wars.
Amazing how far we have strayed from the vision of the founding fathers.
Of course, some changes have been positive. For example, the fact that most Americans are eligible to vote now.
Of course, having the votes successfully cast and counted would be a nice next step.
For example, the fact that most Americans are eligible to vote now.
Unfortunately, most Americans choose not to vote. Is that part of our problem? The corporations have given themselves the right to vote, maybe that is a bigger part of the problem.
Americans who choose not to vote often do so because they see no point. A prime example is the ‘06 election when independents DID come out to vote and swung the majority to the Democrats as the lesser of the two evils.
Unfortunately, this is too often the case. Which party is the least likely to hurt us… Which candidate at least supports one thing I want… Which candidate is totally unacceptable…
And, the corporations help make it so. With their unending millions poured into the campaigns of whichever politician who will do their bidding, they flood the airwaves with their propaganda meant to confuse and dumb down the electorate.
Now corporations are entering the internet with an a stealth campaign of misinformation. And they are setting up straw candidates to go in and protect their bought politicians.
I have been pushing this idea in hopes that it will traction. As an american it sems that concerned individuals seem to have little effect in bringing about change. Many individuals of character (Cindy Sheehan/Nader) and many groups (ACLU/Anti-War movement) can not penetrate the blanket of dollars that corporations use to suppress meaningful change and more importantly even let fellow american understand how many americans do NOT approve of the direction, ethics and policy of this once great nation.
I suggest that a a coalition of ALL groups (Immigration/Anti-War/Anti-globalization Healthcare/Free Speech/Free Press- and just concerned Americans in general) combine and simultaneously withdraw an average of 10,000 dollars oout of the banking/brokerage section of this country for sa one week. If a combined group of 10,000,000 people withdrew an average of $10,000 dollars - we would effectively have removed 100 billion in cash - but due to fractional reserve banking as much as 10 TRILLION dollars out of the economy.
OUR MONEY - they use to finance deadbeat corporations (such as Enron and worldcomm amongst many other corupt anti-american people corporations) -not to mention the governement who would rather show 50 people protesting in Burma a dozen times in a day - but not the 100,000 in Washington DC on September 15th or the one million in NYC during the Republican National Convention - as well as countless other examples. They are using OUR MONEY as collateral to do harm to US.
If -it is possible to combine our goals into one goal - which is to let these corporations/governmets KNOW that we KNOW - they are sing OUR MONEY to finance a WAR against US - and we will move it to Switzerland or some other country - just like they outsource oor jobs - we could single handly achieve the greatest worldwide non-violent most effective protest in the history on mankind.
We already know - that Mexico’s biggest foreing exchange generator is immigrants sending money back home - more than oil!! - Imagine the message we would be able to send to all oppressed people everywhere - if we could successfully withdraw upto 10 trillion dollars in funds from the worlds largest economy !! All of a sudden the contempt from our congressman, senators, police, banks, corporations and brokerage houses would shrivel to the size of a raisun in the sun.
What do you guys think!1 I see no other way for americans to restore their voice in thie governance of our country - with out getting arreted/fired/balcklisted ad nauseum!!!!!
This is absolutely right — we, the citizens, cannot let Bush get away with these violations of the Constitution and unilaterally bring about war — “unleash war”. Setting the precedent of allowing a President to do this is in direct contradiction to the spirit of the founders’ thinking and of democracy itself. We must maintain government by the poople and not become an empire, constructed by invasions of less powerful countries. Whether it succeeds or not — and who knows whether it would? — it is something we must do on principle.
The big problem is that most progressives/liberals do not care much for the Constitution of our Founders.
For that matter, they don’t care much for the Founders themselves, having been taught that they were all a bunch of piggish plantation owners with slaves. This is gross overgeneralization. Benjamin Franklin, for example, was neither a plantation owner nor a slaveowner, and he was a leading proponent of the abolition of slavery. It would have been nice to see all of them following Franklin’s lead, but abolition was essentially a 19th Century concept, and Franklin was simply ahead of his time.
It would be nice to see Bush impeached and the war reined in by Congress, but until more people develop the respect for the Founders that constitutes REAL patriotism, we’re doomed to continue playing Caesar.
Impeachment is off the table, as is:
Defunding the occupation
Ending the occupation
Scepticism about Petraus
Questioning Rove and Gonzales
Linda Sutton September 17th, 2007 6:35 pm
“Americans who choose not to vote often do so because they see no point. A prime example is the ‘06 election when independents DID come out to vote and swung the majority to the Democrats as the lesser of the two evils.”
Whether the Democrats were really the lesser of two evils is at best questionable.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090607J.shtml
Lobo Gris
G. Bush and his wrecking crew are like the weather “every one talks about it but no one can do anything about it”
Maybe its time to rewrite the constitution, after all it was written by slave owners and traitors.
What do you guys think!
Well I don’t read long rambling posts so I wish you would get to the point and STFU!!! This post needs to get a clue from HuffPo on the reply part!
How many people have been beseeching their represenatives to impeach this President? But Congress is not listening. They have grown too big for their breeches and think it’s beneath their dignity to listen to the average citizen. Bush should have been held in check long ago especially when it was apparent that he stole the election. What is really scary is that he has the power of pushing the button. I fear Congress will be too late in chaining this mad dog as war looms ahead again with Iran and any nation Bush feels is necessary for his vision. And the schools need to start teaching American Government again so that the young won’t be so easily fooled.
Nichols wrote:
“But the founders would be even more worried about the precedent set by the current president’s seizure of ungranted authority for warmaking . . .”
Nichols did not read his history. That matter was decided in between 1819 and 1850. Starting in early 1819, the House of Representatives debated whether to sanction General Jackson’s invasion of Florida during the prior year. After 12 days of debate they rejected two bills: one that would have said the invasion was “contrary to the Constitution of the United States”, and the other stating that the House “disapproves of the capture and occupation of Pensacola . . . without the authority of Congress.” But on February 8, 1819, in a vote 100-70, the House decided against both bills (By Mr. Cobb). And as far as the founders, Jefferson himself approved of Jackson’s invasion, as did President Monroe and his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams who lied publicly about the whole matter in a public letter to his ambassador to Spain. The matter was solidified by the Marshall Supreme Court in the 1820s. Then, with the invasion of and annexation of half of Mexico in the 1840s the march towards empire was on. Invasions and occupations were intermittant up to WWII, and after that became constant.
We have instituted coups in 34 nations since WWII, two since Bush came into office: Haiti and Somalia. And we all know about the Bush plan to overthrow eight nations in the Mideast: Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Iran. (See the testimony by Wesley Clark on Democracy Now.) The thing is, this is the norm since WWII. And the roots began, not with the “precedent” Nichols refers to with Iraq, but with the first precedent on February 8, 1819.
It is too bad that someone as reputable as Nichols would imply that the Constitution has somehow prevented wars up to now and that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is some kind of exception and a “precedent.” Nonsense. Ask any Native American. William Earl Weeks covered the outline of what happened in Florida in chapters six and seven of “John Quincy Adams and American Global Empire,” 1992, Univ. Kentucky Press.
Peace and Greetings fellow Earthian!
Thanks Beowulf! Peace and Greetings to you too.