Impeachment
War, or even the threat of it, has always
seemed to give the president more power. In
times of war Americans often
readily give more power to the president, but once
the crisis is over the
public then becomes concerned with whether they have
created an office that
has become imperial. The office of the president has
become increasingly more
powerful over the last 50-60 years. Even though the
power to declare war and
send US troops into war belonged to Congress there have
many presidents who
have chosen to disregard that point and enter our country
into war. Recent
history has shown that there have been several occasions when
the president
has taken upon himself to deploy troops or order attacks, without
even as
much as consulting Congress. One president was able to trick the
Congress
into entering into war, and still others have informed Congress after
the
fact. In 1950, President Harry Truman dispatched troops to South Korea
after
it had been invaded by Communist North Korea, without a declaration of
war from
Congress. Facing re-election in 1964, President Lyndon Johnson,
wanting to be
seen as taking a hard stance on Communism entered a war he
never really
supported in the first place. In recently released, secretly
recorded tapes,
Johnson dicussing Viet Nam is heard telling his national
security adviser,
McGeorge Bundy, " It looks to me like we’re getting
into another Korea, I
don’t see what we can ever hope to get out of there
with once we’re
committed....I don’t think it’s worth fighting for and I
don’t think we
can get out, and it’s just the biggest damn mess." (Scheer)
But within three
months of his statement, Johnson entered the US into the
Viet Nam War. Johnson
was able to enter the US into the Viet Nam War by
withholding information form
Congress. American ships had reported a
possible attack by the North Vietnamese.
That report turned out to be in
error, a fact that President Johnson knew about,
but withheld from Congress
for three days in order to persuade them to pass the
Gulf Of Tonkin
Resolution. President Johnson had presented the resolution to
Congress as
just an authorization to repel North Vietnamese attacks. That
resolution gave
the president the power to do what he thought was needed
militarily.
President Johnson immediately ordered the bombing of North
Vietnamese
naval bases, resulting in the US being drawn full scale into the Viet
Nam
War. In 1973, Congress had enough and reclaimed the war making power
when
they passed, over the veto of President Richard Nixon, the War
Powers
Resolution. The War Powers Resolution called for the President to
consult
Congress at least 48 hours in advance before sending military
forces into
imminent danger. Congress must also approve the continued
deployment of troops
or weapons within 60 days or the president must pull
them out. (Church) However,
in 1980, President Jimmy Carter ignored the
resolution when he launched a
mission in hopes of rescuing American hostages
being held in the Middle East. It
was only after the bombers were in the air
and nearing their targets that Carter
informed Congress. Eight servicemen
died in a mission that was eventually
aborted. The next president, Ronald
Reagan, more than once refused to seek
Congressional approval before
sending US troops to foreign countries. Reagan
ordered the invasion of
Granada to protect American medical students. Reagan
also sent warships to
the Persian Gulf and defended his actions by contending
that because the
situation was non-imminent he had the power to deploy troops
without the
permission of Congress. Following Reagan’s presidency, President
George
Bush also sent troops to foreign soil without the approval of
Congress.
President Bush sent troops to invade Panama because of
escalating violence
against Americans there. In 1994, President William
Clinton ordered a military
invasion of Haiti to overthrow the government
there without even consulting
Congress. That mission, like Carter’s was
also aborted.(Schell) Clinton never
had the full support of Congress when he
entered Somolia or Bosnia. Bill Cohen,
a political commentary, describes this
type of behavior by these presidents best
when he says: "When Congress is not
informed, or misinformed, when it is
advised of actions long after they have
occurred, the system of checks and
balances is arrested. Democratic
government, in effect, deteriorates toward
dictatorship." Another example of
the Executive Branch taking matters into
their own hands and disregarding the
Constitution is the Iran-Contra Scandal.
The scandal came about when it
was revealed that President Reagan and Vice
President Bush had secretly
negotiated with Iran for the release of hostages.
Reagan and Bush had
agreed to send arms(missiles) through and intermediary to
Iran in
exchange for the hostages. This arrangement was clearly against US
policy.
The Iran-Contra episode involved extensive lawbreaking, perjury,
cover-up and
a betrayal of the constitution.(Government) Again I go to Bill
Cohen to
best describe the situation: "When an Administration adopts
objectives whose
goals, however defensible, are at odds with the actions taken
by Congress, or
with its own publicly acknowledged positions, it embarks on a
perilous
course. Subordinates of any President are motivated primarily by a
desire to
carry out his wishes, whatever the consequences. Without an
appreciation of
the balance between the branches, such subordinates may be
ignoring the law,
even if it means taking actions which violate publicly stated
US policy."
Another issue that lends itself to the idea of an Imperial
Presidency is
that of the line-item veto. On June 1, 1997, a new law came into
effect that
allowed the president to reject specific items in appropriation
bills, new
entitlement programs, and special interest tax breaks without vetoing
the
entire bill. Existing entitlement programs such as Medicare and
entitlement
programs affecting more than 100 people are protected and could
not be touched.
The first president to have this freedom of line-item
veto is President Bill
Clinton, the man who actually signed the bill into
law.(Grolier 1997) Proponents
of this law say it will let President Clinton
cut unnecessary or"pork-barrel" spending. "Pork-barrel" spending is
appropriations
obtained by senators and congressmen for their states or
districts. Proponents
say that the President could cut this type of spending
out of a bill without
vetoing the entire bill, bringing discipline to the
budgeting process.(Dodge)
But opponents of the line-item veto have fears
over the shifting of power from
Capitol Hill to the White House. The
line-item veto gives the president enormous
leverage against Congress when
the two branches of government are
wrangling.(Welch) The President can indeed
use this new law to cut spending, but
the real danger lies in what else he
may be able to achieve with it. The
President could use it to put
pressure on lawmakers to confirm his appointees to
the courts, the Cabinet,
or Ambassadors. The President could also use the threat
of a line-item veto
to win support for his versions of laws, programs and
treaties. There are
those who feel that members of Congress will no longer
oppose the president
even on such issues as foreign policy in fear of
retaliation on their home
state projects.(Line) Senator Patrick Moynihan, a
leading opponent of the
line item veto, said: "In the history of the
Constitution there has never
come before us an issue considering the relations
between executive and
legislative branches as important as this one."(Mauro)
However, the
line-item veto has serious constitutional problems. In Article 1,
Section
7 of the Constitution it states that Congress passes bills and the
president
may veto them. It does not say "part of a bill" or "individual
lines of a
bill" it says "bill"."(Matthew) In March of 1998, John Murtha
finished his
testimony before the Congress regarding the line-item veto by
saying: " Let
me conclude by saying the Constitution is clear, appropriation
bills start in
the house, and if passed by the senate, the bill is confrenced,
repassed by
both bodies and sent to the President where he can sign or veto the
bill.
Anything less, changes the balance which was set up under the
constitution,
and if it is to be changed it can only be changed by a
constitutional
amendment."(Line) On June 25, 1998 the Supreme Court agreed
with Murtha. The
Court ruled that a true line-item veto would take a
Constitutional
amendment and the 82 times that Clinton had used it had
been
unconstitutional.(Kenyon) The line item-veto had unconstitutionally
shifted
power from Congress to the president. Supporters of the line-item
veto have
already introduced new legislation to restore the president’s
ability to limit
congressional spending. Unfortunately, the bipartisan
phenomenon of an imperial
presidency is still able to avoid the safeguards
set up in the constitution and
abuse their powers in a way that benefits
their own objectives. Les Aspin warned
of "crazed dictators" while testifying
during the Iran-Contra hearings. His
warning is just as applicable today: "It
behooves Congress to use this
interlude to dismantle the infrastructure of
subterranean government, where the
opportunity for so much abuse lurks."