Posted on 02/16/2006 11:14:47 AM PST by wcdukenfield
Unfortunately, George Will believes that Congress has the power to micromanage the president's explicit commander-in-chief responsibilities. He reads the "necessary and proper clause" the way activist judges read the commerce clause, i.e., without context or limitation.
Will properly notes that the Constitution "empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws ’necessary and proper’ for the execution of all presidential powers." [Will's emphasis.]
But as Joseph Story, the great Supreme Court justice and constitutional scholar correctly wrote: "The clause, in its just sense, then, does not enlarge any other power, specifically granted; nor is it the grant of any new power. It is merely a declaration, to remove all uncertainty, that every power is to be so interpreted, as to include suitable means to carry it into execution" (A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Section 208).
James Wilson was the principal author of the necessary and proper clause. At the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, he explained: "Necessary and proper [are] limited and defined by the following, 'for carrying into execution the foregoing powers' it is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given, shall be effectually carried into execution" (The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, page 147).
The necessary and proper clause does not empower Congress to seize explicit constitutional authority from the president. Congress has the specific authority to defund the NSA program or any aspect of the war on terrorism. There's no doubt about that. This is the ultimate power over war. But it does not have the authority to seize power from the executive branch to micromanage wartime decisions. To the extent that FISA impedes on president's authority, it's unconstitutional. In other words, the Constitution not only places checks on the president's power, but it limits Congress's power as well. Hence, we have the doctrine and reality of separation of powers.
Will, Bob Barr, and a host of other conservatives appear to have bought into the idea that our civil liberties are best protected by either Congress or the judiciary. And so they make weak arguments against a president exercising his legitimate constitutional authority, e.g., intercepting enemy communications during war — warning about unchecked power and various hysterical scenarios. There's no historical or constitutional precedent for their position. Indeed, imagine the practical implications. As Story wrote:
"Timidity, indecision, obstinacy, pride, and sluggishness must mingle in a greater or less degree, in all numerous bodies, and render their councils inert and imbecile, and their military operations slow and uncertain. There is, then, true wisdom and policy in confiding the command of the army and navy to the president, since it will ensure activity, responsibility, and firmness, in public emergencies" (A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Section 278). The Framers did not want Congress micromanaging war-time decisions. And considering that the Constitution leaves it largely up to the elected branches to establish the judiciary and determine its authority, they certainly didn’t empower judges to substitute their decisions for those of the commander-in-chief.
I don't always agree with Will...but I think he is great.
We have three EQUAL branches of government. The Executive is run by the President, he controls the NSA.
I see this entire issue as the Legislative branch wanting to manage the Executive.
This is all about egos and johnsons.
I think he is a pompus rino that really knows baseball. He has been in DC too long and the lefty slime has begun to rub off on him.
Unfortunately for Mark Levin, George Will is technically correct on this one. Congress can -- at least indirectly -- micromanage any executive power to whatever extent they deem necessary.
The power of Congress to impeach a sitting President is basically unlimited. If the members of the House of Representatives decided tomorrow to impeach George W. Bush because they don't like Texans, and two-thirds of the members of the Senate agreed, then George W. Bush would be out of a job with absolutely no recourse other than to run again in 2008.
George Will is a RINO? LOL! :D
ping
see this entire issue as the Legislative branch wanting to manage the Executive. ""
I would say they want to MICRO_manage the Executive branch.
Since they have done such an outstanding (NOT) job in their own part of Government, sure seems like they shouldn't get to touch anything else.
Besides, I am more than a little bothered that there are members of Congress who are leaking information about our plans to the enemy. Jay Rockefeller is at the top of my list.
Of course Congress has the power to impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Congress cannot micromanage explicit executive powers in the Constitution. This isn't speculation. It is the history of our Republic, and the way the Constitution has operated from day one.
Don't be obtuse. If Mark Levin were a wild-eyed, foaming at the mouth Carville-type liberal on "This Week", George Will would cheerfully concede this point to avoid looking "mean spirited". Will's a liberal's definition of a "good conservative".
I wonder if Georgie was as concerned when Slick bombed the Serbs...our allies.
those are the same arguements made by my parents when talking about Bill Klinton. Will makes me sick. He has become a man bashing all things proposed by the Bush administration.
"I don't always agree with Will...but I think he is great."
He should just stick to writing about baseball.
Was Mr. Will one of those who strongly advocated Harriet Miers withdrawal from nomination?
I believe he was cited by the punditocracy then as being a credible commentator.
Mr. Will appears to be saying the Legislative branch has the power to regulate the Executive branch. Surely this is accurate, and Mr. Will is still credible.
What moron would believe otherwise?
Blind hyperbole, right from the beginning. Nowhere in Will's column is there anything about "micromanaging". What it does say is that Congress plainly has the power to ensure that the President's surveillance is related to fighting the WOT, and not just a free-for-all for any kind of fishing expedition he wants to go on.
Agree completely. Will is the punditry's equivalent of a punch drunk middleweight who needs to retire.
George Will is wrong a lot. Mark Levin, on the other hand, is right a lot.
Come on, that's a bit harsh...he is usually writing about personal responsibility, etc. His articles are well written/thought out, and almost always conservative...
If you are trying to compare Will to Clinton, that is your problem, and I cannot help you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.