The "War Czar": Unconstitutional and Immoral (argument)
Submitted by the_sentry on April 13, 2007 - 4:41pm.
Call to Action
"A Prince, therefore, must have no other object or thought, or take up anything as his profession, except war and its rules and discipline, for that is the only art that befits one who commands."~Machiavelli
I understand that more times often than not many people should take some stories more seriously than others because of what they intend and what they imply in their context. And, to some degree some stories and scandals that come out are specifically for the intentions of harming another politician, or is engendered in the name of the political campaigning.
This, however, is not one of those times. My jaw literally hit the floor when the White House acknowledged that they were seeking a "war czar" to run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, citing the need for better cooperation and more oversight.
What?
This is the thing, and it's such a simple thing that even one such as I can see it: This "war czar" is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Anyone who rejected that job was wise enough to do so on the precedence that they would be set up as a "fall guy" or whatever: But, this isn't the problem. The very core, the very root of this whole notion of a "war czar" is it allows the President of the United States to subvert when is arguably his central role and responsibility in the Federal Government: To act as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and to give oversight to these tasks.
Not a "war czar". A commander in chief.
Of course, some may challenge the legalese of such bold assertions on my part, but to reinforce the position held here I would cite the Alexander Hamilton Federalist Papers (no. 74)
THE President of the United States is to 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." The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.
I think that pretty much sums up the context of the commander in chief as designated by one of the founding fathers. It's an essential role: It cannot be ceded, and not just for what Hamilton listed as reason: Historically, nations have fallen or have been subverted for less. And, in light of this, I would not be suprised at all if the Democratic Congress challenged Bush's inability, or unwillingness to execute his office under Article II of the Constitution:
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.
I am not arguing the notion that the president's job may be difficult: But, he cannot cede his primary responsibility to another. If he wishes to do this, then he should by all means cede his entire office to another because the responsibility of overseeing war and accepting the responsibility of those endeavors is his essential role.
Enough is enough. I have tried to remain objective over so many missteps and abuses of government in the previous years. If this president is unable, or unwilling to perform the duties of the President of the United States of America he needs to step down and the Vice President needs to fill this role. That's the Constitution, and the Constitution laid the heavy burden of war at the feet of the Executive because it IS NOT something to be taken ligthly, or something to be absolved.
If the Congress does not push for a probe into this and challenge its legality, I will be very suprised, and disappointed. A president should NEVER cede his chief responsibility like this. And, this is an issue which should alarm liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, military, civilians, and any American who lives under the laws of these lands. This is a subversion of our very laws, and must be challenged. And, he who would even consider absolving his duties must also be challenged!
Bush has tried to cede all responsibility in his life. You're right. This is just another example--the most extreme, of course--but completely in concert with his history.
I have heard some other arguments in regards to this, specifically of the position Marshall had during WW2 as the Army Chief of Staff. But...this is far beyond that. This implies military decisions that would be made without oversight of the President of the United States. And, Marshall was not in charge of the Pacific and the Atlantic during WW2.
Jokes aside, this isn't what the Constitution permits. Overseeing and managing a war is the primary function of the executive office. I have not found one person who spoke with earnesty or honesty who thought this was a "good idea".
That's because it isn't. In fact, it's a damnabe dereliction of duty while in office!
One can review history and see telltale signs of how government was subverted. Executive power when it comes to these types of duties cannot be handed off or marginalized. The President should not have a "buffer" overseeing the Pentagon and the State Department. The Intelligence Czar was arguable because it is a position that implies use during both peace and wartime.
But, the president cannot cede this authority to another. Under no circumstances should Congress or the American people allow this!
[i]"On October 24, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced that the title of "Commander-in-Chief" would thereafter be reserved for the President, consistent with the terms of Article II of the United States Constitution. Armed forces CINCs in specified regions would thereafter be known as "combatant commanders," heading the Unified Combatant Commands."
"The term National Command Authority (or NCA) is used by the United States military and government to refer to the ultimate lawful source of military orders. The term refers to the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF).
The NCA also applies to how the president as Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces and the SECDEF communicate with warfighting commanders known as Combatant Commanders or COCOMs to order US forces into action."[i]
Source: Wikipedia
CINCs are now gone...in name only. Wow.
David Brooks started out his Friday evening on the NewsHour in total agreement with you. He began by saying that question of War Czar was part of why our ancestors threw the tea overboard. Then he went on to talk about the presidence roll as CiC.
Of course Brooks finished up his appearance with a steady bashing of any of the Democrats mentioned.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
Bashing or not, it's still the most clear precedence I can see of arguing the inability to fulfill the oaths of the executive office. And, to be honest? I know a lot of politics is pure garbage. But this one is a topic that pretty much has universal agreement about it when it comes to the putrid idea of a 'war czar'.
I really hope someone gets a hold of this. Everyone is kind of laughing about this, but the Administration should be barred from appointing this czar. And if they do it, then there should be a demand for the president to step down.
I'm usually not this adamant about an issue, but this one really, really bothers me.
Came on a later show and basically played CYA for bush. His spin was that this position has existed for several years with a different name. Although he admitted that the current coordinating person has been ineffective (she's leaving in June) this idea was no big deal.
Sangor might have been on Washington Week, cause all of the questions were weak.
If bush is the CiC, the position has been trimmed down to saluting on occasion, which isn't much of a job considering what a lame salute bush has.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
That is total spin. This isn't about carrying messages between 2 groups. This is about prosecuting the wars themselves, and being "The Decider".
What is this country coming to?
He's called the commander in chief. As in the President.
Or if you say, no, we need a military one, not a civilian one, we already do. He's call the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
For some reason, El Presidente thinks that adding another title will make things better.
All it will do is create another layer of bureaucracy -- aren't conservatives supposed to be against that, anyway?
It's in the job description that they have to take the blame for the whole thing retroactive to 9/11. Maybe even to before 9/11, I'm not sure.
by looking for a war czar to take over his duties as commander in chief. He should resign immediately. That's the only honorable course left to him. If Cheney can't handle the responsibilities, someone else should be appointed Veep instead, so that that other person can assume the responsibilities of the president as commander in chief. But above all it is very clear that Bush is completely incompetent to exercise the duties of the office of president of the US.
These people are getting crazier and crazier - War Czar is possibly the most confused idea ever suggested in a cabinet position.
My father, born in 1890 in Russia, was a soldier in Czar Nicholas II's army during the era of World War I. (If you are doing the math, I was born in 1940).
He would tell me (when I forced him to talk) about how that czar thing turned out: Russian Revolution and the execution of Czar Nicholas and most of his family.
