It's too bad somebody can't rein Ted Kennedy in, or at least stick some duct tape on his mouth before he completely embarrasses what passes for a Democrat these days. Today, Kennedy announced a resolution to force the president to get Congressional approval before sending any more troops to Iraq.
Putting aside for the minute whether or not such a resolution would be constitutional (it doesn't pass the smell test, but I'm not an expert), some oppose Kennedy's idea because it gives Congress too much power.
The idea of having Congress micromanage this war — or any war — is enough to make me shiver. Should the bill become law, it would instantaneously raise the issue of where to draw the line: what presidential actions would require approval? Would the president be able, on his own, to increase an American force level by x percent, but not by y percent? Would there be certain mitigating circumstances that would trump the requirement for Congressional approval? If so, what would they be?
Kennedy’s proposal is an extraordinarily bad idea.
According to the Moderate Voice, Talk Left agrees.
But even if such a veto could be overridden, the law would be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, impinging on the President's power as Commander in Chief in Wartime. In order to act in the manner Senator Kennedy wishes, the Congress must strip the President of the power the Congress granted him to wage war in Iraq.
Kennedy argues that Congress authorized President Bush to fight a war against Saddam Hussein, not to get involved in a civil war. This seems like a shaky argument, to me, since ousting Saddam (at least, according to war opponents) wasn't the end of the war. Remember the sneering about "Mission Accomplished"? How can you sneer at that, then say what has happened since Saddam's overthrow isn't part of the same war.
The Talk Left piece is an interesting bit of lawyerly argument about Kennedy's resolution and I recommend it highly.
|