I don't always agree with Will...but I think he is great.
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.
ping
I wonder if Georgie was as concerned when Slick bombed the Serbs...our allies.
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.
George Will is wrong a lot. Mark Levin, on the other hand, is right a lot.
'nuff said.
You wrote:
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.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps the problem here is that the clause does not empower Congress to make laws ™necessary and proper" for the execution of all presidential powers.
It says Congress has the power:
"--- To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. ---"
It says nothing about a congressional power "for the execution of all presidential powers". -- Nor does anything in the rest of the Constitution support that idea.
Will can only "properly note" that the Constitution "-- empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws ™necessary and proper" for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. ---"
Good heavens, well it could be worse- he could have cited the "general welfare" clause.
The Articles of Confederation gave congress the powers so many want to give them roday: "making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations."
But the Founders changed that in the Constitution- they wanted a strong executive. And one who could always act militarily in defense- on his own power.
"FRIDAY AUGUST 17th. IN CONVENTION
...Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.
Mr. SH[E]RMAN thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war."
The vote was 7 to 1.
The National Review proves yet again it is no longer conservative and just a mouthpiece for the party of bigger government
And what "explicit constitutional authority" are we discussing?
Thank you, Mark Levin, for your clear reasoning and understanding of Constitutional law. I hope you're the next SCOTUS nominee.