Dems Can Restore Congress's Power

By Stopping Bush on Iraq, Dems Can Restore Congress's Power

By Rachel Morris

Washington Monthly, Posted on January 19, 2007

http://www.alternet.org/story/46905/

This week, certain members of Congress found themselves in something of a
pickle: What do you do when the public opposes a troop surge in Iraq, a
blue-chip bipartisan study group recommends against a surge, top military
generals advise against a surge -and the President decides that what the
nation really needs in Iraq is, well, a surge? On Jan. 7th, Sen. Joe Biden
offered Tim Russert what is more or less the Democrats' consensus answer to
that question: "....[T]here's not much I can do about it. Not much anybody
can do about it. He's commander in chief. If he surges another 20, 30, or
whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake, in
my view, but, as a practical matter, there's no way to say, "'Mr. President,
stop.'"

As a number of legal scholars have pointed out in recent days, that's not
exactly true. Congress does have some constitutional tricks up its sleeve.
So far, the media has mostly focused on Congress's power to cut funding for
the war, and its ability to attach conditions to future appropriations,
which Sen. Kennedy sought to do with his resolution last week, and which
John Murtha is threatening to do using the defense appropriations committee,
which he chairs.

These proposals, while constitutional, are probably the weakest of the
possible options the Democrats have. Congress has already appropriated
President Bush's defense budget for 2007, meaning that he doesn't need any
new money for the surge; Democrats are also wary of doing anything that
could be perceived as harmful for the troops.

But there are other ways. Congress could limit the number of troops; or it
could set a deadline for withdrawal, as it did in 1973 for the war in
Vietnam (and which Nixon ultimately met). It could also revisit its original
authorization for war in October 2002. As leading constitutional scholars
have pointed out, the rationale that now underpins the war in Iraq bears
almost no resemblance to the one supported by Congress (you may remember
that the original reasoning had something to do with weapons of mass
destruction and Iraq's alleged links with Al Qaeda.) Congress could produce
a reauthorization of military force that reflects this reality, a route Sen.
Robert Byrd is supporting.

Of course, even if the House and Senate mustered the majorities required to
override a presidential veto and pass such measures, it's highly likely that
Bush would just ignore them. After all, since 9/11 he has repeatedly made
the sweeping claim that he alone has the power to decide what "methods to
use to best prevail against the enemy." That's precisely why Democrats
should go ahead anyway.

Politically, if President Bush were to defy a law passed by a newly-and
resoundingly elected-Democratic-controlled Congress, it would place
responsibility for the war unavoidably with him. It would also draw public
attention to the administration's previous abuses of the law.

There's a larger motive too. The authors of the Constitution split war
powers between Congress (which gets to declare war and manage the armed
forces) and the President, (who gets to direct the war) for a reason: It
didn't want an English-style monarch with a monopoly on military matters.
Under Republican control, a passive legislative branch has allowed the
executive to claim unprecedented powers in this area, with disastrous
results. Congress now has a responsibility to restore the balance.

Rachel Morris is an editor of The Washington Monthly.

Posted by Sylvie K.