Bio
Will Hinton is a consultant and blogger who got his start with the blog, Dignan's 75 Year Plan. Over the past few years, Will has used his blog as a platform to explore running for Congress, spearheading volunteer efforts for Hurricane Katrina relief, and challenging common perceptions about politics.
Will has developed a reputation in the blogosphere for reasonable and gracious dialogue on contentious political and religious topics.
Will is also a guest contributor at PeachPundit, RedBlueChristian, Nation-Building, RedState, and DailyKos.
Will lives in Atlanta with his wife and two daughters.
Comments
Bingo
Could not agree with you more, Will. To me, this is a perfect Good Will Hinton story b/c the balance of powers is something both liberals and conservatives can/should agree on...
Encyclopedia Brown
I agree that we will
I absolutely agree that we will probably regret the expanded role of the presidency under Bush.
but...I think Specter is wrong as a matter of constitutional law.
This isn't exactly my area of expertise but I am under the impression that from a Constitutional standpoint, the Pres. is the commander in chief of the military and pretty much has sole discretion in tactical decisions such as this. The congress can declare war (which they did) and they control the purse strings of the military and they can pass other, general rules regarding the military, but they can't infringe on the tactical and strategic powers of the president as as commander in chief. That is how the balance of powers works out. I would be shocked if there is any case law that would undermining the commander in chief's power to make these decisions.
On a side note, "balance of powers" is different from "shared powers". As far as I know, the constitution does not provide for any "shared powers". Each branch has its own powers, balanced by the distinct powers of other branches. The closest you come to shared powers in the Constitution is the "advice and consent" language, but even this has been interpreted to give Congress the ability to vote on nominees, but not in the sense of sharing power. The president has power to nominate and Sendate has the power to vote up or down. This is a balancing of power, not a sharing of power. In all other cases, powers are balanced, not shared.
Just my 2 cents.
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
Indeed
This is one thing that bona fide conservatives and libertarian liberals can agree on: consolidation of power in the executive is a terrible idea.
This isn't a tactical decision; it's a decision over the scope of the war. The courts haven't provided much guidance in this area (and shouldn't; it's part of the grand design of the Constitution to have the branches battle this stuff out politically), but IMHO Congress's power is plenary in this area.
scope of war
The scope of the war isn't increasing at all. The administration is sending in extra troops to achieve goals that have been previously stated. Examples of expanding the scope of war include entering Iran, Syria, or other countries.
That being said, I still think this is a bad idea.
If Congress sticks to their guns (no pun intended) and de-funds the war, then we have a real clash of the branches in which they flex their constitutional muscles to determine where money goes. I think it's more difficult for congress to act this way, to be disciplined. It's easier for the executive to resist outside pressure than 535 legislators.
From my point of view, I hope they keep discipline in this effort.
The scope of scope is wider than you presume
Scope can encompass numerical force. If the congress can limit a military action to a smallish excursion, an increase to several - brigades? divisions? you know what I mean - is an increase in scope. And, if congress can limit size, subsequent legislation putting caps on size repeals the initial authorization in terms of forces allowed.
Post new comment