Wartime Power Play (Some Senators Want Constitutional Amendment to Limit War Power of POTUS)

Time Magazine ^ | February 13, 2006 | MASSIMO CALABRESI

[RWR8189]

As Capitol Hill prepares to battle the White House over George W. Bush's expanding war powers, moderate Senators on both sides of the aisle are quietly considering a range of options that would attempt at the very least to delineate the President's authority, if not roll it back. Bush's claims of wartime license are so great--the White House and Justice Department have argued that the Commander in Chief's pursuit of national security cannot be constrained by any laws passed by Congress, even when he is acting against U.S. citizens--that some Senators are considering a constitutional amendment to limit his powers.

In the public-opinion battle over domestic eavesdropping, Bush won the first round by arguing that he needed the unchecked power to learn "if there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaeda." With poll numbers split on the issue, spooked Senators hunkered down. But in recent days, Senate Democrats and the Judiciary Committee's Republican chairman, Arlen Specter, have fired off nine letters to the Justice Department and the White House demanding information on the domestic-spying program. At Senate hearings last week, the former head of the National Security Agency refused even in closed session to say how many phones had been tapped in the U.S. This reticence comes after conflicting public estimates from President Bush ("a few" U.S. phones) and his Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff ("thousands").

A source familiar with the nascent constitutional amendment says one version would make clear that any actions by the President as Commander in Chief that affect domestic policies or U.S. citizens are subject to the exclusive control of Congress. "Congress can't completely cede wartime power to the President," the source says. Talk of an amendment could end up as merely a lever in hearings. Then again, the first 10 amendments--better known as the Bill of Rights--were demanded by the states in part to curb the Constitution's broad presidential powers.

With reporting by With reporting by Timothy J. Burger

[FreedomCalls]

A source familiar with the nascent constitutional amendment says one version would make clear that any actions by the President as Commander in Chief that affect domestic policies or U.S. citizens are subject to the exclusive control of Congress.

That would have invalidated the Emancipation Proclamation had it been in effect in 1863.

[DoughtyOne]

You cannot run a war via sub-committee.

Those that favor this in the Senate are nuts!

[peyton randolph]

Any Republican who supports such a measure should be stripped of his chairmanships (Specter comes to mind) and defunded (Chafee and the rest of the RINOs).

[Tzimisce]

...this is so lame. Even if an amendment is created, one activist court would just throw it out (the way they threw out the 4th amendment in Kelo)...

[bybybill]

How does that song go, "Dream, dream, dream".

[spyone]

"Moderate Senators on both sides of the aisle"....any literate person can see this is TIME's wish as to what should happen. I swear, if I was a controlling shareholder in one of these media outlets, I would be chopping heads for ruining my business. Editorialism disguised as reporting. The executive ranks in the media business are so incompetent. It's like watching GM in 1980

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

More reasons why the 17th Amendment should be repealed.

The Senate is a joke.

[FlingWingFlyer]

"Some Senators" are obviously so stupid they don't know what is involved in getting a "Constitutional Amendment" passed.

[marron]

This is a victory for the president. If what he did was illegal, as they have claimed again and again, why would they need an ammendment?

This is an admission that what he did was legal.

[68skylark]

You cannot run a war via sub-committee.

Those that favor this in the Senate are nuts!

I respectfully disagree with your first sentence. For example, the Revolutionary War was run pretty successfully via sub-committee.

I totally agree with your second point -- today we know how to run wars a lot better than we used to.

This whole Time article is ridiculous -- no one but the most far-off moonbat liberal thinks this amendment would be a good idea, and even fewer think it will pass.

[TASMANIANRED]

Tone deaf democrats deny that Europe is burning..

[Bubbatuck]

I'm a republican who supports such a measure.

Anybody who calls himself a conservative who believes the executive alone should have full war powers should be expelled from the Republican party. How's that?

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the comments. I'm not familiar enough with the revolutionary war command structure to comment on that.

Can you imagine a war setting today where democrats and republicans discused tactics and directed the war effort. Geez, it would be better to just surrender and get it over with.

These days, grudging democrats would just leak war plans.

[DeaconNoGood]

Guys, do we have a Declaration of War against Iraq? I really don't know the answer to this question wonder if it is absolutely a constitutional requirement to have a Declaration of War before we attack a country?

[Logical me]

Apparently these knuckleheads don't realize what is needed for a constitutional amendment. What jacka@@. We need to clean house. Boot these birdbrains out.

[grey_whiskers]

"Some Senators" are obviously so stupid they don't know what is involved in getting a "Constitutional Amendment" passed.

This is political payback for the Alito nomination, for the Plame non-scandal...

Besides, Hillary, Rockefeller, Reid, Kennedy, and Kerry (all of whom are stupid enough to think that a Constitutional Amemdment can be breathed into existence by a Senate subcommittee), need something to keep the Daily KOS crowd contributing...

Cheers!

[SAJ]

Those that favor this in the Senate are nuts!

Thank you for restating the obvious, D.O. -- and your point is...?

(chortle!)

;^)

[SAJ]

We do not have a declaration of war against Iraq, only a Joint Resolution of the Regress.

A declaration of war is/was hardly necessary: the United States have only declared war 5 times in history (can you name them?), but the President has, on his authority as Constitutional Commander-In-Chief, committed American troops to war or war situations on more than 210 occasions.

[kingu]

Umm, note to Congress. If you're bothered by the President's war powers, DON'T DECLARE OPEN ENDED WAR. Hello? Listening? You authorized the President (and that's any president) to go after terrorists or those who might commit terrorist actions. There's no limit as to where those terrorists might be, what their nationality is, or even that they actually be terrorists. Just that it is possible that they might commit terrorist actions.

Don't like it, then end that resolution. But no, you don't want to do that, because you don't want to face the prospect of going into a campaign admitting that you surrendered to terrorism, so instead, you wish to limit the constitutional rights of the President because you're too chicken to handle the aspects of the legislation you put into place.

Utter morons, in both houses, and usually with a D after their name.