"The Constitution is all we’ve got!” Déjà vu all over again. It was almost exactly one year ago (372 days to be exact) that I posted something very similar to this on Facebook concerning an American missile strike against Syria in response to a poisonous gas attack. Well, here I go again. This is not an effort to seek a Republican answer or a Democratic answer; nor a conservative or a liberal answer. This is an effort to seek an American answer. To me, that is an answer that is Constitutional. The Constitution is not only the finest government ever created by Man, in my humble opinion, it is what also separates us from “barbarism and brutality”. I have read and heard many people mock the idea that there is any danger or threat of the United States ever becoming tyrannical. “There are too many safeguards like checks and balances to prevent that from happening,” was the way one commenter described it on social media.
The geo-political situation in Syria is one of the most complex in recent world history. The war pits the forces of President Bashar al-Assad and their allies against several forces that oppose not only the government but one another in a twisting, turning mess of conflicting alliances. Adding to the chaos is the involvement, both direct and indirect, of several other countries supporting one or more forces at play in the conflict. Often these nations support forces that actually oppose one another in Syria. This collection of interested parties include regional entities such as Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Turkey. And if that was not enough, let's mix in more than a dash of the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and China. What's left makes for one massive cluster of confusion. And yesterday, America upped the ante with a missile attack against the forces of Assad. So here are some questions that I believe we should be asking ourselves before passing judgement on such actions.
Each of these is good and justifiable question to ask. But it is my final two questions that we must ask and answer as a nation. 4. Where does such authority come from for such military actions to be taken by France, Britain, and the United States? There was no United Nations declaration nor even a NATO declaration. I am no expert on either French or British government and honestly I doubt few Americans are concerned with their government interactions. But American politics are another matter. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. After a declaration of war by Congress the power to “direct” the military as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. While the U.S. has repeatedly gone to “war” without a declaration of war, nearly every example has involved Presidents going to Congress for authority to take military action. Korea, Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Afghanistan, etc. In each case, Congress authorized military action without a declaration of war. Since the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that transformed itself into the Vietnam War, Congress has attempted to more narrowly define the decidedly vague emergency military powers of the president. In 1973 Congress passed the War Powers Act in the hopes of preventing another presidential war. After 9-11, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists (AUMF) resolution. The issue of emergency war powers is not stated in the Constitution either. This has not stopped virtually every president has claimed this power since Abraham Lincoln called up an army while Congress was out of session following Fort Sumter. It is this perspective that FDR claimed when issuing Executive Order 9066 authorizing the interning of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II. Yesterday’s decision to engage in military was decided by the President without Congressional approval. Almost any interpretation of the Constitution make this an illegal or unconstitutional action. Today’s approval by individual Congressional representatives and senators is not the same as Congressional action. Constitutional authority is not the same as political or even popular support. This brings me to my final question. 5. How viable is a constitutional republic when both our leaders and popular masses choose to follow political parties rather than Constitutional principles?There is precedent for presidential wars. Democrats condemned George W. Bush as tyrant for invading Iraq with only Congressional approval and no U.N approval. Republicans were equally vocal in the condemnation of Barack Obama’s decisions to use military force (missiles, bombs, and drones) in Syria and Libya without Congressional approval. Each action was roundly criticized by Republicans both in Congress and in the public alike. Obama was vilified as a near-tyrannical despot by many Conservatives while Democrats rallied to his cause. At that time businessman, entertainer, potential political candidate Donald J. Trump joined in the condemnation of President Obama. Yet here we are. Just a couple years later and many Republicans circle the wagons as they rally around the flag during military crisis while many Democrats assume the position of opposition. We expect no less. In an age when often the best political argument is not to defend one’s party or candidate, but to engage in a war of “What about-ism?” Case in point, “Donald Trump slept with a porn star and paid her to be quiet.” “Oh, yeah, but Bill Clinton… This now brings us full circle. Our Founding Fathers created a constitutional republic where the Constitution prevails as the “Supreme Law of the Land” instead of political parties. Political parties were denounced as partisan, factions, and barriers to government action. In the words of William Golding’s Ralph, “The Constitution is all we’ve got!” When a constitutional republic such as the United States finds itself turning to partisan politics for answers instead of Constitutional authority, then all of the safeguards such as separation of powers, checks and balances, and judicial review are in danger of becoming meaningless.
I think it is effective to consider Jack’s response to Ralph in Lord of the Flies. As Ralph cries out in desperation to save the very rules they have created to government themselves: “Because the rules are the only thing we’ve got!” Jack responds: “Bollocks to the rules! We’re strong—we hunt! If there’s a beast, we’ll hunt it down! We’ll close in and beat and beat and beat—!” I pray that we as a nation never confuse our military might for justice or righteousness. President Trump described the actions of Britain, France, and the U.S. as marshalling “their righteous power against barbarism and brutality”. I would hold that it is our Constitution that secures a constitutional republic from the very barbarism and brutality we oppose. Without the Constitution to guide us, how much different are we really from those we condemn with missiles and drones? That might be a question we are afraid to answer.
0 Comments
|
Archives
January 2021
Categories |