A dramatized assault on the Constitution
So, with the World Series depriving me of my Tuesday night shows, Commander in Chief wound up on my television (I take neither credit nor blame: my wife was controlling the remote while I puttered on the 'puter), and having seen the pilot and this episode, I have to wonder if the show's producers intend to base every episode's plot on a blatant violation of the Constitution.
In the pilot, the President threatened Nigeria with military action in order to prevent its government from executing a woman for adultery. In tonight's episode, she ordered a military assault on San Wherever-the-fuck to destroy cocaine fields and encourage a popular uprising because the country's dictator had ordered the death of DEA agents.
Neither of these actions lies within the President's authority.
The Constitution is pretty explicit: the President is Commander-in-Chief of the military only when the military is called into "actual service" -- and the only entity authorized to call the military into service is Congress. We've been living so long with imperial activity by our sitting Presidents, under the presumed authority of the un-Constitutional War Powers Act, that the majority of Americans seem to not even realize that the President can't do that. The Constitution separated those military powers because the signers of the Constitution recognized that the most dangerous thing to any country is the investiture in one person of the authority both to activate and command the military force of the country: such an individual can drain the blood and wealth of the country on wars and military violations of other nations' sovereignty that are irrelevant to the security of the country, and which indeed damage the security of the country by necessitating action and defense against an ever-widening range of countries that hate and fear the country for its actions. (I'll talk about Iraq in another post). The fact that so many idiots in our country shout "rah, rah" every time the President talks tough makes it incumbent on our elected officials to remember that separation of powers and enforce it. It'd also be nice if TV writers would actually make mention of it from time to time.
In the first plot, Geena Davis should not have gotten involved. If y'all are so upset about something like this (in the real world, of course, not on television), there's nothing stopping you from funding a group seeking to change that country's government, or even getting together some like-minded individuals to spring the broad yourselves. After all, the citizens of TV-land Nigeria don't seem to care enough, so why should the U.S. burn taxpayer money and risk a multinational reaction by violating Nigerian sovereignty with military action? How does that protect U.S. citizens?
In the latter plot (episode 3, I guess), the proper response would be to go before Congress and present a case for a declaration of war against San Wherever-the-fuck: attacks on U.S. sovereignty by killing U.S. citizens (who were, well, kind of violating San Wherever-the-fuck-ian sovereignty by trying to dictate what its farmer could and could not grow) are always good for a "Go get'em" from even the most independent-minded of Congressmen. In the context of the show, of course, press coverage of the request would probably have had the same serendipitous effect as the announcement of an imminent attack, and it would have had the advantage of compliance with the Constitution. Stupid show.
I know, it's just a TV show, and I'm glad that Geena Davis has a job. But it's just another reminder that nobody is arguing the Constitutional point in public, and we've got a sitting President who isn't nearly as cute as ol' Geena throwing military force around as though he were . . . well, King George III, the very inspiration for our Founders' decision to separate war-declaration and commander-in-chief functions in our own government. Sigh.
In the pilot, the President threatened Nigeria with military action in order to prevent its government from executing a woman for adultery. In tonight's episode, she ordered a military assault on San Wherever-the-fuck to destroy cocaine fields and encourage a popular uprising because the country's dictator had ordered the death of DEA agents.
Neither of these actions lies within the President's authority.
The Constitution is pretty explicit: the President is Commander-in-Chief of the military only when the military is called into "actual service" -- and the only entity authorized to call the military into service is Congress. We've been living so long with imperial activity by our sitting Presidents, under the presumed authority of the un-Constitutional War Powers Act, that the majority of Americans seem to not even realize that the President can't do that. The Constitution separated those military powers because the signers of the Constitution recognized that the most dangerous thing to any country is the investiture in one person of the authority both to activate and command the military force of the country: such an individual can drain the blood and wealth of the country on wars and military violations of other nations' sovereignty that are irrelevant to the security of the country, and which indeed damage the security of the country by necessitating action and defense against an ever-widening range of countries that hate and fear the country for its actions. (I'll talk about Iraq in another post). The fact that so many idiots in our country shout "rah, rah" every time the President talks tough makes it incumbent on our elected officials to remember that separation of powers and enforce it. It'd also be nice if TV writers would actually make mention of it from time to time.
In the first plot, Geena Davis should not have gotten involved. If y'all are so upset about something like this (in the real world, of course, not on television), there's nothing stopping you from funding a group seeking to change that country's government, or even getting together some like-minded individuals to spring the broad yourselves. After all, the citizens of TV-land Nigeria don't seem to care enough, so why should the U.S. burn taxpayer money and risk a multinational reaction by violating Nigerian sovereignty with military action? How does that protect U.S. citizens?
In the latter plot (episode 3, I guess), the proper response would be to go before Congress and present a case for a declaration of war against San Wherever-the-fuck: attacks on U.S. sovereignty by killing U.S. citizens (who were, well, kind of violating San Wherever-the-fuck-ian sovereignty by trying to dictate what its farmer could and could not grow) are always good for a "Go get'em" from even the most independent-minded of Congressmen. In the context of the show, of course, press coverage of the request would probably have had the same serendipitous effect as the announcement of an imminent attack, and it would have had the advantage of compliance with the Constitution. Stupid show.
I know, it's just a TV show, and I'm glad that Geena Davis has a job. But it's just another reminder that nobody is arguing the Constitutional point in public, and we've got a sitting President who isn't nearly as cute as ol' Geena throwing military force around as though he were . . . well, King George III, the very inspiration for our Founders' decision to separate war-declaration and commander-in-chief functions in our own government. Sigh.
posted by heavynettle at 20:58
2 Comments:
Funny that an actress who kind of had a rep' as intelligent and independent would sign on to such a parade of drivel. I guess it shows how much a good publicist can mold public perceptions. Presumably the "writers" (using the term loosely, based on your review) of the show sought to show how women could be tough but how much more "women's issues" might figure into a female president's thinking. Well, it's inane to assume that presidents are attracted to human rights issues at home or abroad based on the victim's gender.
It also shows complete and total ignorance of the very complicated ethnic, religious, political, and economic realities within Nigeria. I have no doubt that a large percentage of Nigerians would welcome U.S. military invasion if it were directed against their internal Muslim/Christian/Animist competitors; but from your description, the show didn't even get to that level. Which brings up the homily about people getting the government they deserve--most people don't know shit about Nigeria, don't know its a multiethnic, multireligious country still suffering from the legacy of colonialism at the hands of the British and, more recently, American oil companies. The most heinous example that comes to mind of this behavior was the late juntas execution of the very brave and important man, environmentalist Ken Saro-Wira for "economic crimes" against the state. Shell Oil was behind that particular horror, but let's not forget Dick Cheney's troubles still stemming from bribes Haliburton seems to have paid the same government while he was CEO at Haliburton. So, yes, it's a stretch, but we now have the #2 spot in the U.S. government held by a man who seems to have knowingly paid bribes to a foreign government whose response to environmental protests is to hang people with the full blessing of their international supporters.
What does this have to do with the Commander in Chief show? Absolutely nothing, other than to show that the world is a complex place about which the masses don't know shit and don't recognize the complicity of their leaders in creating. But they are still stirred by the drum beats of war to stop the godless heathen threatening Terry Shrivo or Safiya Hussaini or to seek revenge for two DEA agents sent on a mission of questionable legality or moral authority.
Yes, Congress should have to declare war. But 5 years ago most Americans thought a Kurd was something you deep fried, and when the president spun a story of a clear and present danger (never mind those unpatriotic distractors asking for proof), congress rolled over like beaten dog and wrote out a blank check.
The ignorance on display in our streets scares me because it paves the way for dictatorship.
Well said, sage thrasher. A quibble, though: the joint resolution allegedly authorizing the President to invade Iraq contained the troubling clause "as he deems necessary and appropriate". This represents an attempt to establish an extra-Constitutional mechanism for declaring war: the President's discretion. As a mere legislative act, it does not override the Constitution, and therefore cannot transfer war declaration discretion from the Legislative to the Executive Branch. So yes, Congress rolled over as the cowards they are, but their action did not authorize the President to pursue war, and Bush should have been impeached for invading Iraq in 2003. Note that, had it been a declaration of war, Bush should have been impeached for failing to pursue war immediately. The legislators who approved this measure violated their oaths to defend the Constitution, and are traitors, as is every soldier who deployed to Iraq on orders from the President to do so absent Congress' declaration.
But the cowardice of Congress is the exact reason why there is a breakdown in the separation of powers. If Legislators had the courage to actually vote against the appropriations for invasions not explicitly ordered by Congress, well, it's a volunteer force, but not that volunteer. Their willingness to fund military action that some claim to be against has de facto legitimized the action, but it does not suffice to absolve the Legislators, President, and military personnel for the prior transgression.
Post a Comment
<< Home