An open letter to journalists and politicians
I have just one request of you folks. When somebody justifies this or that action by the President by quoting the Constitution as saying that he is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, please, please, please tell that person to finish the quote. The full quote, from Article II, section 2 is, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;".
I'll admit there's quibble room here. Ideologically, I would apply the dependent clause "when called. . . " to both the "Army and Navy . . ." and "the Militia . . .", but grammatically it is equally probable, or even moreso, that it applies only to "the Militia. . .".
Even granting the latter interpretation, it is clear that the National Guard (which constitutes the state militias of our day) cannot be called into service by the Executive Branch, but only by the Legislative Branch: absent a specific act of Congress, the President cannot command the National Guard.
I call on anyone reading this to cite the Congressional Act that has called the National Guard into actual service, because the only acts I have read actually "authorizing" the President to carry out hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have included such phrases as "as he deems necessary" -- yielding their authority to declare war or activate the National Guard to the Executive Branch, which the Constitution does not authorize Congress to do.
Politicians, you have sworn an oath the uphold and defend the Constitution, so you'd damned well better already know this -- and you'd damned well better start remembering the whole description of the Commander-in-Chief authority. Journalists, you're supposed to hold these jackasses to account, so you'd damned well better start challending folks who try to slide by with only the first part of the Article II, section 2.
I'll admit there's quibble room here. Ideologically, I would apply the dependent clause "when called. . . " to both the "Army and Navy . . ." and "the Militia . . .", but grammatically it is equally probable, or even moreso, that it applies only to "the Militia. . .".
Even granting the latter interpretation, it is clear that the National Guard (which constitutes the state militias of our day) cannot be called into service by the Executive Branch, but only by the Legislative Branch: absent a specific act of Congress, the President cannot command the National Guard.
I call on anyone reading this to cite the Congressional Act that has called the National Guard into actual service, because the only acts I have read actually "authorizing" the President to carry out hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have included such phrases as "as he deems necessary" -- yielding their authority to declare war or activate the National Guard to the Executive Branch, which the Constitution does not authorize Congress to do.
Politicians, you have sworn an oath the uphold and defend the Constitution, so you'd damned well better already know this -- and you'd damned well better start remembering the whole description of the Commander-in-Chief authority. Journalists, you're supposed to hold these jackasses to account, so you'd damned well better start challending folks who try to slide by with only the first part of the Article II, section 2.
posted by heavynettle at 18:17
3 Comments:
There's also Article II, Sec. 1: "...In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected..."
Ok now, let's talk about "inability." Has "inability" to perform one's job ever been so aptly demonstrated as by Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Al "Abu Ghraib" Gonzales? Honestly now, it doesn't say incapacitated. It doesn't say comatose, or deranged, or eating grass on the White House lawn. It says "inability." I think the intent is clear that the famous "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not required (though they do also apply in this case) to remove a president who has proven inable to govern.
Can of worms. Can opener. You know the rest.
Wilson, anyone?
Reagan was alleged to doze off during briefings. . . .
Carter vetoed legislation he had pushed.
On an abstract level, can we expect anybody to be able to be President of the United States?
We can easily establish violation of the Constitution (and oath to uphold same), but I'm not going to walk into the hornet's nest of defining "inability". Doesn't matter anyway: our legislators lack the balls to entertain articles of impeachment, despite the bright, clear line of reasoning leading inescapably towards it; no reason to expect that Democrats would drag the level of partisanship down to calling Bush and Cheney the incompetent dolts that they are.
...our legislators lack the balls to entertain articles of impeachment, despite the bright, clear line of reasoning leading inescapably towards it...
Unfortunately, you are probably correct. Alberto Gonzales's testimony last week before the judiciary committee gave direct evidence of purposeful violations of the Constitution:
"GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: When did you last read the case?
GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.
SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.
GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by..."
I mean, WTF do they need after THAT???
Post a Comment
<< Home