One of the perpetual complaints against Congress is that it routinely
usurps powers which the Constitution reserves [in the words of the Tenth
Amendment] "to the States respectively, or to the people." That hasn't
changed any. Yet in recent years, Congress has also shown little diligence in
exercising many of the powers and responsibilities actually assigned to it by
the Constitution.
The most obvious example of neglected responsibility is the power of
Congress to declare war. Article I, Section 8 specifies that Congress alone
must "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water." Yet, since World War II Congress
has satisfied itself with mere resolutions of (sometimes limited) support for
military actions that the president can't legally take without a declaration of
war. Getting permission from NATO or its big brother, the UN, is no
substitute for following the process mandated by the Constitution.
Any treaty made by the president must be ratified by two thirds of the
Senate before it can take effect, according to Article II, Section 2. That is a
significant hurdle for the various treaties negotiated by presidents. Yet when
the president and congressional internationalists wanted to involve us in
NAFTA, they circumvented the ratification process by calling the treaty an
"agreement." In my view, that was an illegal transfer of power from the
Senate to the president.
Apparently the Supreme Court disagrees. According to an AP report
on November 26, 2001, the court declined to hear a challenge to NAFTA:
"The United Steelworkers of America argued that presidents should not be
allowed to handle international deals like congressional-executive
agreements to get around the Senate vote requirement for treaties." With this
precedent, all three branches of government have now shown their contempt
for the Constitution's treaty making process. This leaves us with the danger
that any controversial treaty could be put into effect simply by renaming it
an agreement.
Congress is especially susceptible to the temptation to turn over their
powers to the president during times of war or crisis. Presidents are usually
more than happy to take advantage of this. The present campaign against
terrorist groups is no exception.
An article in the November 20, 2001 Washington Post lists many
instances of congressional powers that they claim President Bush has
arrogated to himself. It is interesting to note that many of their complaints
arise from new executive powers in legislation such as the so-called USA
Patriot Act. Well, guess who had to approve that legislation before the
president could sign it? A majority of our intrepid legislators had to vote for
it. Apparently many in Congress doesn't feel comfortable with the powers
and responsibilities to which their oath to obey the Constitution obligates
them.
The extreme popularity of George W. Bush in this time of war makes
it politically difficult for members of Congress to exercise that body's
responsibilities when they come into conflict with the president's will. It
also makes this a dangerous time for our Republic, with a majority of
citizens willing to go along with almost anything in the name of national
security. Let's encourage our representatives and senators to support the
president when he defends our nation while staying within the bounds of the
Constitution; but to stand tall against any violation of that fundamental law.
|