EDITORIAL: Defund the war in Libya

[Hippo_Tron]

Before getting to the link, let me point out up front that I'm fully aware this is the Moonie Times and that the notion that anything insightful could come from that rag, let alone its editorial pages, will (and ought to) seem preposterous to most here. This is an extremely rare exception.

Also, I'm not starting this thread to debate our action in Libya (even though this article does take a position). My intention in starting this thread is to have an academic discussion on the constitutionally prescribed method for congress and use this article as a springboard for such a discussion.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/20/defund-the-war-in-libya/#disqus_thread

The absurd argument that there is no war in Libya should not stop Congress from defunding it. Moving against this unnecessary “limited kinetic action” using the power of the purse will return Congress to first principles that have been obscured by the arcane debate over the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

Conservatives have questioned the propriety of the resolution since it was passed over President Nixon’s veto in 1973. The law’s “legislative veto” provision is probably unconstitutional, though it has not been tested in court. In June 1995, the Republican Congress nearly repealed the act, a fact which currently allows Mr. Obama’s defenders to charge that conservative opponents of the Libyan adventure are simply playing politics.

Defunding the Libyan war is a better, more constitutionally sound approach. The “power of the purse” was specifically assigned to Congress as a limit on the war-making prerogatives of the executive. It was an explicit and planned division of authority between those who carry out war and those who pay for it. As James Madison wrote in a debate over the Neutrality Proclamation of 1793, “Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.”

Here are some thoughts of mine to get the discussion going...

I think that the author has a good point that the founders didn't intend for us to be arguing over whether the President's actions are constitutional based on whether they are "hostilities" or "war". However, they didn't see fit to make any of these distinctions clear in the constitution. Is this because they wanted to give the executive branch leeway? Is it because they did not envision the President using any military force without a formal declaration of war? Or is it because they intended for congress to check the President via the power of the purse?

Furthermore, if they did intend the power of the purse as the main mechanism for congressional control of military action, how realistic is this in the 21st century? Aside from the obvious political considerations of cutting off funding for military action in today's world, the fact is that there was no large standing army when the constitution was written. The power of the purse is much stronger preemptively than re-actively. It's easy to refuse to fund a military action before it starts. But congress will inevitably be more reluctant to choke off funding for a war when the troops are already in the field, because it could harm the troops if the President is defiant and wants to continue the war. Certainly the framers didn't intend for our brave troops to be caught in the crossfire while the President and congress played chicken, did they?

[Mimosa]

1. K&R

It's almost as if nobody cares, isn't it?

[Hippo_Tron]

2. I posted it relatively late at night and asked for an "academic discussion"

So I figured there was a reasonable shot few (if any) would respond, but I at least wanted to get my thoughts on this matter typed out. Very interesting stuff, IMO.