How Democratic Is The American Constitution?

By: Blkwolfvf1 Mood: curious Date: 09/05/2007 00:33:49 Music: None

How Democratic Is The American Constitution?

Every document has a historical context, the U.S. Constitution is no different. What was written, and the intended meanings or applications for one period of time, may not be transferable to another or future historical frame of reference. This is why the U.S. Constitution has been formally and informally amended numerous times. Even President George Washington, at the Constitutional Convention, claimed the Constitution was not perfect. The Founders included Article V that allowed for amendments (additions or changes), knowing that the Constitution would eventually be transformed and reinterpreted as society and political ideas evolved. Their concepts of a Republic, and more specifically the war-making powers given to the Executive Branch, were limited to their situation. In no way could they foresee the thirteen states becoming fifty states; a devastating Civil War; unchecked American expansion and executive privileges during the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II; the escalation of the Cold War and the Korean and Vietnam Conflicts; the rise of the Corporate-Pentagon Armament Industry; the attacks of 9-11; the current war in Afghanistan and Iraq; and the extension of over seven hundred U.S. military and naval installations throughout the world that houses hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. In other words, they could not have known that the U.S. would someday become a Hyper-Empire. Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution has not kept pace, neither has it checked the powers amassed by the Executive Branch. I will argue that in reviewing our first president George Washington and the U.S. Constitution, and rethinking the role of the Executive Branch and its past and present histories, it is time for the phrase and notion Commander-In-Chief to be formally amended and removed from the U.S. Constitution.

Surprisingly, the earliest drafts of the U.S. Constitution excluded any war-making powers presently found in the Executive Branch. However, there were several officers that having fought in the American Revolution, along with a handful of Representatives, wrote George Washington suggesting that he become king of the newly formed states. Be assured sirs, wrote George Washington, no occurrence in the course of the War, has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the ArmyI view this to be abhorrent. He continues, If you have any regard for your Country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me, banish these thoughts from your mind. This stinging rebuke towards those who wanted to make George Washington king reflects a leader who was prone to self-constraint and wanted to remain true to the principles of a Republic. There is also strong evidence that the major reason the phrase Commander-In-Chief was placed in Article II, which pertains to the presidency, was because George Washington was the Commander of the Continental Army. He had the experience, the knowledge, suffered extreme hardship, and fought beside the soldiers of the American Revolution. He did not disappoint the newly formed nation. He often saw his presidency and the role of the Executive Branch as a mediator between the Legislative and Judicial Branches. He despised factions, political parties, and attempted to avoid foreign entanglements. While France and England were embroiled in war, France sent their Ambassador to the U.S. to influence the government to join the conflict. President Washington emerged with a Proclamation of Neutrality instead of a Proclamation of War. When President Washington was criticized for his action, Alexander Hamilton published a treaty stating, If on the one hand the Legislature has a right to declare war, it is on the other the duty of the Executive to preserve peace till the declaration is made. Even after the Whiskey Rebellion, in which President Washington gathered an army to defeat the uprising, he pardoned all of those who were involved. As the first acting president who was unanimously elected and refused a third term in office, he understood that the role of the Executive Branch was one of advising, not dictating; instead of a war monger he was a mediator; instead of self-adulation, he practiced self-restraint; and of course as the Commander of the Continental Army he had experienced first-hand the ravages, brutality, and dangers of war.

If you were to ask most people in America which Branch of government had the sole power to make and declare war, the majority of people would probably say the President-Executive Branch. The president is the Commander-In-Chief only after, not before, war has been declared by the Legislative Branch. Article 1 Sec 8 of the U.S. Constitution, that explains the war-making powers of the Legislature, actually gives eleven specific powers to Congress that deal with hostilities, such as 1) providing for the common defense; 2) constituting tribunals; 3) defining the punishment for Piracies and High Sea Felonies; 4) declare war; 5) grant letters of Marque and Reprisals; 6) make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; 7) raise and support Armies for two years; 8) provide and maintain a Navy; 9) rules and regulation for Naval and Land Forces; 10) calling forth the Militia; 11) and organizing and training the Militia. Compare these powers to Article 2 Sec 2 of the Executive Branch which gives the president only two war-making powers, such as 1) the President shall be Commander In Chief of the Army and Navy; 2) and the Militia when called into service. One can readily see the disproportionate amount of war-making authority that was given to the Legislative Branch (which also consists of elected officials that represent the people), versus the President (which is still placed into office by a few individuals known as the Electoral College). One could even argue today that the Legislature is more democratic and better reflects the views and opinions of the people, because it is elected by the popular vote whereas the Executive Branch is still elected by the Electoral College. In keeping with George Washingtons letter and the principles of a Republic, many colonial leaders feared the royal prerogatives of the British Crown to initiate and continually make war. Actually, they feared tyranny by one individual or a small group of people.

It is clear that in reading the Federalist Papers, diaries, and personal letters and expect perpetual war, or for the President to reign over an empire. Perhaps it started with Andrew Jackson, who ignored the Judicial Branch and began a forced Indian removal policy of the Five Civilized Tribes west of the Mississippi River. Abraham Lincoln, even before the Union declared war on the confederacy, took advantage of Congress not being in Session and expanding the Civil War by blockading southern ports and confiscating materials and ships. During the Spanish-American War, the U.S. added Cuba, Puerto Rico, and colonized the Philippines and several other islands in the Pacific. Theodore Roosevelt once boasted that he took Panama away from Columbia, in order to build the Panama Canal while Congress debated the issue. Woodrow Wilson continued to expand the Executive Branch by making the world safe for market economies, signing the Espionage and Alien-Sedition Acts, imprisoning and deporting thousands of suspected anarchists, sending U.S. troops into Russia hoping to defeat the Bolsheviks, and redrawing the Balkans and the Middle East. Franklin Roosevelt, because of The Great Depression and WW II, gained tremendous powers as he established numerous relief and social programs in which Americans would depend on the government, while signing an Executive Order that interned a 135,000 Japanese-Italian-German citizens. All of these presidents established War Industry Boards and War Production Departments as they took over certain segments of manufacturing and even the railroads. Strikes and labor stoppages were prohibited, resulting in the deaths of protesting workers.

The Cold War and Age Of Oil further galvanized and increased the Executive Branch. Some officials argued that because of the threat of nuclear weapons and little time to react, more power should be given to the president to quickly decide to launch missiles in case of an attack. (One could also argue just the opposite, what if the individual and inner circle over-reacted and actually started a nuclear war or their preemptive policies were fundamentally insane?) For the first time in Americas history, U.S. troops were stationed in Europe and repeatedly sent to Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Guatemala, Indonesia, the Middle East, and other places around the world. The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave Lyndon B. Johnson the power to use any means necessary to defeat the North Vietnamese. When you consider all of this, along with the enormous Public Relations Campaign at the presidents disposal, the Executive Branch growing from just three departments to currently twenty-one, an enormous professional standing army that runs contrary to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, and an arms industry in which the president and his advisors threaten or punish states by withholding military expenditures and bases, it is no wonder that in 1991 when George Bush Sr. sent troops to Saudi Arabia to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait said, I do not believe it is necessary for Congress to authorize the war. Finally, only one commanding general in the 20th Century has ever served as president, compared to nine generals in the 19th Century. Shockingly, since the Korean War, no presidents son has ever served in the U.S. military. Therefore, has the notion of one person being Commander-In-Chief become obsolete?

In walks to the center of the stage George W. Bush, the first president of the 21st Century. It has been reported that when several Republican Congressional leaders met with President Bush and warned him that renewing the Patriot Act could alienate conservatives, he said, Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, its just a f%/*#ing piece of paper. Again, while the mainstream media was only reporting with full page write-ups and pictures of a smiling George Bush about his use of expletives, they missed the real story. While meeting with European leaders in St. Petersburg, Russia, President Bush also said (when referring to his speech and the Lebanese-Israeli Crisis), Im just going to make it up. Im not going to talk to long like the rest of them. (This statement is on tape and was actually recorded!) The phrase and concept Im just going to make it up, runs contrary to the thoughts, debates, the aftermath of the revolution, and their new role in the world, that the Constitutional Framers faced. President Bush and most of his appointees have never served in the military, neither have they experienced war. They appear to be aloof from any emotional intelligence and un-knowledgeable concerning the U.S. Constitution, let alone foreign affairs. Yet, he is given the title Commander-In-Chief. This is exactly what I believe the Framers of the U.S. Constitution feared and could not foresee: a president that would abuse the emerging powers given to the Executive Branch over a span of decades; a leader who would pursue the Rule of Lawlessness instead of the Rule of Law; a president who would sign Executive Orders, Signing Statements, and suspend habeus corpus; a leader who would try to pursue establishing his own legacy instead of pursuing liberty and truth; a president who would authorize middle-of-the-night round-ups of his own citizens, secret jails, covert wars, torture, and arms sales; a leader who would practice risk for his names-sake instead of restraint; a president and his staff that displays the signs of going nuclear! The words and idea Commander-In-Chief must be wrestled away from this rogue president and future administrations that lead the country into disastrous wars and conflicts.

But this is only the beginning, for the root cause of the President and his staff turned Military Junta is the phrase Commander-In-Chief. As a nation, we can either continue to allow misguided presidents to sacrifice our young on the altar of war instead of the altar of freedom, or we can formally remove all war-making powers and the words, Commander-In Chief , from the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps we could give ALL of the war-making powers back to the Legislative Branch, as was originally intended in the early drafts. We could also possibly form a peoples council that would reflect a cross-section of U.S. citizens and place the military under their authority, truly making the army subject to civilian control. By doing this, a Declaration of War would be entered upon cautiously and with proper debate. Either way, there is an urgent need, and an imperative, to remove Commander-In-Chief not only from the Executive Branch of the U.S. Constitution, but also from the present administration. Common Sense tells us so, does it not?

Michael J Kern Ph.D. EE MCSE