Congress' duty
|
Racine Journal-Times (Racine, Wis.) Published Opinion. September 9, 2002. Recently the administration has said it doesn't believe it needs formal authorization by Congress to wage war on Iraq. The senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican John Warner of Virginia agrees. According to Warner, "Congress has to be a partner, not necessarily in deciding when to act, but to support the President," as stated in the Washington Post. What these politicians are conceding is that we now live in a country in which one man, the President, has -- and should have --- the power to send the entire nation into war and that the role of the Congress is simply to serve as a consultant and supporter for the president. That's not what our Founders had in mind when our nation was founded. They understood the tremendous dangers to the liberties and well-being of people who live in societies where such omnipotent power is concentrated in one man. That is why our Constitution has a division of powers with respect to war. Under our system of government, while the president was given the power to wage war, he was precluded from doing so without an express declaration of war from Congress. The president and Senator Warner are wrong. While President Bush certainly has the military power to attack Iraq without a congressional declaration of war, there should never be any pretense that such an attack will be consistent with the principles of limited and divided government that our Constitution brought into existence. Senator Warner and all of his associates, Democrats and Republicans alike, should be publicly telling the President: "No, Mr. President, you are not authorized to attack a sovereign nation without a declaration of war from Congress, especially a sovereign nation that has not attacked America."" I applaud U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) for doing their jobs. Aaron Biterman Brookfield |
 |
Published Letters Index |