“I’ll Write the Check, You Balance The Checkbook”: The Fall of Checks & Balances in America
Zach | 14 01 2007If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!
America’s founding fathers created a Constitution meant to govern the country for the hundreds of years that would follow. They incorporated contingency plans for many situations; planning for times of war, peace, economic depression, etc. The Bush Administration, however, regards the ages-old document as “just a goddamned scrap of paper.” The Constitution is far more than the administration acknoweldges. Bush’s attitude about the document alone is not the problem; it’s the way he’s acting upon it. The Constitution as written was meant to be interpreted by the courts, not by the president. The Iraq War, however, has provided Mr. Bush with an exemplary opportunity to seize powers for the executive.
In effect, Mr. Bush is planning on racking up an extraordinary bill in Iraq and presenting it to Congress without their prior commitment. Recent events highlight the extent to which Mr. Bush is willing to go to achieve what the President claims is, “a better chance for success” in Iraq. Bush’s speech Wednesday night called for a commitment of 20,000 troops but made no mention of the appropriations to fund Bush’s new plan. After all, Congress is the only governmental agency that posesses the “power of the purse.” Still, Bush forged on, claiming that enough money is in governmental coffers to begin his plan. By the time extra troops are on the ground, “it will be too late for Congress to stop them.”
Apparently Bush wasn’t confident enough in his earlier attempt to garner financing from an unfriendly Congress. In an interview Sunday night with 60 Minutes, Bush noted that he would send troops to Iraq regardless of what Congress’ wishes were. Bush was asked if he had the authority to send troops to Iraq regardless of Congress’ wishes. His reply was an ugly affront to the principles of the Constitution, “I think I’ve got, in this situation I do, yeah. I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I’ve made my decision. And we’re going forward.”
Congress does have the right to limit funding for Bush’s project. The Center for American Progress mentions several key examples of funding revocations, including personnel ceilings in Vietnam and Lebanon. Can it be done? With an increasingly uncooperative White House, Congress seems not to stand a chance. Unfortunately, the tide of public opinion will sway to the President on this issue. If more troops are indeed sent to Iraq without congressional approval, limiting funding would seem almost patriotic.
Some Congressmen haven’t given up the fight. This week, Ted Kennedy announced legislation demanding accountability for the new Iraq policy. Think Progress obtained key parts of Kennedy’s legislation and a summary from his office.
The legislation claims the people’s right to a full voice in the President’s plan to send more troops into the Iraq civil war. It says that no funds can be spent to send additional troops to Iraq unless Congress approves the President’s proposed escalation of American forces.
Think Progress » Kennedy Introduces Bill Requiring Congressional Approval For Iraq Escalation
Kennedy’s begs an important question: should such limitations of presidential power be necessary to begin with? The Constitution clearly delineated the roles of every branch of government. The Bush Administration seems to have rearranged the tree of government and allowed the executive to obtain an exorbitant amount of power. A New York Times editorial entitled “Picking Up the Pieces” highlights Bush’s problem, claiming “It was surreal how disconnected President Bush was the other night, both from Iraq’s horrifying reality and America’s anguish over this unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable war.” The editorial, however, left out the most crucial disconnect of all: the relationship between Mr. Bush and the Constitution.
Last 5 posts by Zach
- Vote! - November 4th, 2008
- At Least She's Not a Quitter - June 5th, 2008
- Fidel Castro Steps Down - February 19th, 2008
- The New School Goes Road Trippin' - February 13th, 2008
- Obama Outlines Economic Plan in New Speech - February 13th, 2008
Popularity: 23% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
The “I’ll Write the Check, You Balance The Checkbook”: The Fall of Checks & Balances in America by New School Politics, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Your appear very strict in interpreting the constitution in this
Ryan | 15 01 2007Your appear very strict in interpreting the constitution in this instance–and I like that. I believe that congress should serve as a check on the president waging war–which is why congress should have declared war instead of resolving to abdicate their check and give the president discretion.
At the same time I sense that this time your interpretation is only strict out of convenience and that you are only posing as a champion of the rule of law and the US constitution out of expedience for your anti-war stance. Zach, you are a liberal, and hardly an enemy of government. I find that your argument is invalid by virtue of your own hypocrisy, unless of course you also are against: a national bank, foreign aid, government health care, social security, public education, and public works projects (to name only a few) on the basis that the federal government is not enumerated these powers in the constitution.
A true strict constructionist believes in rule of law and checks and balances uniformly and unconditionally; you only champion them in the fair weather.
I have to say, we have different political views but
Eftychis | 15 01 2007I have to say, we have different political views but I cannot see what 20,000 soldiers in Iraq can do other than delay the inevitable. At the same time, I am not sure if the democrats have the balls to cut off funding, they have been running around the question for weeks trying not to answer it. Maybe now that bush has given his speech they will begin to get their act together, but comeon they have to act like a party in the majority.
What is strange to me, as a conservitive (and a sign of how angry I am with the current administration) is that it seems the democrats are the ones who are going to reduce spending and once again limit the size of government (something my party was suppose to do).