What part of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution Does Congress Not Understand?
Monday night, Rep. Pelosi and the Democratic leadership, because of opposition from members of their own party, decided to pull language from the Supplemental Appropriations bill which stated that no funds may be authorized for military operations in or related to Iran unless specifically authorized by the Congress.
According to the Congressional Quarterly daily report, some Democrats are fighting Speaker Pelosi’s language, which would prevent the President from going to war on Iran without the approval of Congress.
One might think this is an easy call; perhaps for you or I; but evidently not for some Democratic members of Congress. According to the CQ some of the same Democrats most vehement about ending the Iraq debacle are resisting denying the President unilateral authority to go to war on Iran.
So much for the idea that in the aftermath of the mid-terms elections the Democrats would recover their backbone and start acting like, well, members of Congress, who have a Constitutional obligation to decide whether the country should go to war.
What is puzzling is why members of Congress would balk at the idea of being the ones to decide whether or not to go to war. After all, it is part of their job description. When they are elected to office they pledge to protect and preserve the Constitution. And Article 1, Section 8, detailing the Powers of Congress, specifically grants Congress the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
In fact, Congress has no good reason to avoid stepping up to the plate and every reason to do so. For starters members might read the presentation by Sir John Thomson, former UK ambassador to the UN, given at a breakfast event our office sponsored last Friday.
Among his points was this:
Given that the threats are uttered by the world’s dominant military power, the risk that they will fail is surprisingly large. The basic reason is that the West is staking everything on an outcome, the permanent or at least indefinite suspension of enrichment by Iran, which the Iranians see as contrary to their national interests and are determined to resist. The logic is simple. The West may fancy it is challenging Islamic extremists – and that would have been true in the not so distant past – but today the nub of the challenge is to Iranian nationalism and the issue selected, the nuclear program, is of all issues the one most likely to unite Iranians and to strengthen arguments for a deterrent “bomb.”
A similar point was made in a report released by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a leading think tank in England. It found that of all the options available to Israel to counter the Iranian nuclear threat, “the military option is the least desirable” as a strike against Iran “might push an already volatile Middle East into further hostilities, uniting anti-Western groups worldwide” against Israel and the US while “isolating moderate Muslim forces.”
The Bush administration talks about using a military option, partly on the false premise that it has exhausted the diplomatic route. As Hans Blix, former director general of the International Atomic Energy, pointed out twice in the past week the only thing the U.S. has to fear is the U.S.
Okay, I’m paraphrasing, but it’s not that far off. What he did call for was for the U.S. to drop its demands for Iran to unconditionally suspend its enrichment program. “”I am saying drop your demand for preconditions,” said Blix. “That’s what prevents you from sitting down with the Iranians.” The Iranians say, ‘We are ready to sit down, we are ready to discuss the question of enrichment’,” he said.
One way or another Congress is involved. As a 1975 study by the U.S. Congressional Research Service on the prospects of occupying oil fields in the Middle East noted, “The administration, Congress, or both–assisted by the mass media could take steps to sway public opinion one way or another if they believed it advisable, although success would not be assured.” Let’s hope Congress takes the right step.
Related posts: