|
Many people, both in and out of the blogosphere, have lined up (at least for argument’s sake) on both sides of the question as to whether Bush needs additional authorization for an attack on Iraq. Some have argued the pace of modern geopolitics is such that Bush (or, presumably, any other president) cannot wait for so archaic a procedure as waiting for Congress to declare war on a supposed attacker, but must strike with the force available to him immediately. Such arguments are not to be dismissed out of hand. We should note, however, that the Constitution explicitly declares the power to declare war to reside in Congress. Now, again, many have argued, in this and other contexts, that the Constitution is an archaic document that should be accorded no respect whatsoever, but simply be ignored whenever it conflicts with our current vision of the good life. Of course, those who so argue seriously generally differ on what specific parts of the Constitution should be ignored. It is sometimes said that the strength of the Constitution is shown by the fact that it has been formally amended only twenty-even times in over two hundred years. I would suggest that this fact demonstrates not so much the Constitution’s strength, as the willingness of both politicians and their constituents to ignore it, a willingness that goes back at least to the first Adams administration. Indeed, looking at the Adams/Jefferson succession, it may be said that those out of power, who appear to be principled defenders of the Constitution, become perfectly willing to violate it for their own purposes once in power. Formal amendment of the Constitution, like impeachment, is one of those avenues provided by the writers of the Constitution that have become invested with a mystic horror. Although people may argue whether, say, Clinton deserved impeachment and conviction, the suggestion that the fact of impeachment (rather than the deep and passionate political divisions over whether he deserved it) would tear apart the country was ridiculous on its face. A country in which no one may formally upbraid its president, deservedly or otherwise, is one which has passed from Republic to Empire, complete with emperor-worship. Similarly, those who truly believe that some or all of the Constitution is outdated should be working to have it amended. If they fear that amendments would be partisan, or less enlightened that its existing text (which is possible, although it can also be argued that that enlightened spirit was intended to restrict less enlightened future generations), they should work to oppose that, or concede that in fact their position cannot count on popular support. At the risk of stimulating angry controversy, I would point out that the positions of both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" advocates would be looked at rather differently, if those position were clearly stated in the text of the Constitution, rather than depending on the interpretation of that text by the Supreme Court. Both Democrats and Republicans ought to demand strict adherence to the Constitution’s text, if only out of a purely partisan fear that whatever shortcuts and end-runs they take will be turned against them when they are out of power. John "Akatsukami" Braue Thursday, August 15, 2002 |
|