To the Constitution's Framers, "that Congress would refuse to fight seemed unimaginable."

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: Why Would Congress Surrender?
By Fred Barbash
Wednesday, January 31, 2007; Page A15

In a matter of days the Senate is likely to begin debating several nonbinding resolutions on the president's plan for a troop buildup in Iraq. As the battle is joined, both houses of Congress need to be reminded that the stakes go well beyond this particular buildup, this particular war and even this particular presidency.

At issue is the constitutional law governing the war power of the executive branch, specifically the vastness of the "battlefield" over which President Bush claims inherent authority as commander in chief. Also at issue are all the comparable claims yet to be made by presidents yet unborn, armed with the precedents being set right now.

In these matters, there is no such thing as inaction. In a contest between two branches over separation of powers, silence speaks as powerfully as words.

That's because the Supreme Court rarely involves itself in disputes between Congress and the executive, expressly making it a two-way conversation -- a "shared elaboration" or "shared dialogue" in the words of scholars -- between the elected branches. When one branch drops out by failing to respond, the other branch effectively sets the precedent, which is passed along to the next generation and the generation after that....

***

The equilibrium of government, in the view of the Constitution's Framers, rested on a stated assumption that each branch would fight fiercely to expand its authority but just as fiercely resist encroachment from another branch.

That Congress would refuse to fight seemed unimaginable.

(The writer, who covered the Supreme Court for The Post, teaches at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism. He has written widely about constitutional history.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001652.html?nav=most_emailed

[lligrd]

1. If They Want To Continue Their Existence

they better start fighting. As it is, I see little reason to continue paying for their positions. Heck, we could hire poodles (for far less pay) to do what they have done so far.

[rock]

3. Poodles would be overkill

I suggest easily trained mice. (No disrespect meant for the mice.)

[Solly Mack]

2. Bush/Cheney came into office intent on expanding executive powers and

marginalizing Congress. They did so with the help of far too many in Congress.

Congress was an active participant in its own marginalization.

When Congress placed the welcome mat down for Bush and stood aside while he strutted his way over the threshold, Congress became complicit in everything that followed. When you lay aside your duty, when you shrug off your responsibility, you are accountable for the consequences for having done so.

Congress helped to create the criminal enterprise that is the Bush administration.

Congress rising up against Bush, to righting the abuses of office by Bush, isn't about holding Bush accountable - though such would be a big part of the process...it's about re-establishing checks and balance. It's about fixing the damage caused to our government by a power hungry executive and a doormat Congress.

You impeach, convict and remove such a President to re-establish the balance of government.

Afterward, you indict, convict and imprison such a former President for his criminal activities.

If Congress won't act - the only question left to answer is "why?"

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Great post -- thanks! nt

[Skidmore]

5. Congress then was not considered a lifetime career.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Good point. nt