Executive and Legislative Power in the Age of Trump - A Present Danger

Our federal legislators, it seems, are finally awakening to the fact that Donald Trump’s behavior has become dangerous to the nation and the World. It’s even beginning to dawn on the person in the street (PITS) that he has exceeded the power given to him in the U.S. Constitution. I’m thinking particularly of Article 1, Section 8, where the powers of the legislative branch are set out specifically. Here is a portion of that article enumerating the war powers of Congress:

• To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
• To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
• To provide and maintain a navy;
• To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

As we all know, Congress has completely abdicated its responsibility to exercise the war powers granted to it by the Constitution. In 2003, it passed a joint resolution giving the President virtually unlimited powers to attack Iraq whenever he deemed it to be necessary[1]

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.–The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–

(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

This subsection gave the president unlimited discretion to attack Iraq whenever he felt like it. Every time since WWII that the executive branch has had a hankering to use armed force against another nation, Congress has let him do it and then weasled out of declaring war by renaming it[2].
If you believe, like me, that the Constitution is a living document, and must be read in the context of the world as it is today and not 1782, or if you believe to the contrary that the Constitution should be interpreted solely by the original intent of the founders, there is no getting past the exclusive grant of war powers to Congress. Short of the problems presented by the possibility of nuclear war, the words mean the same thing. Further, there is no provision for delegating or assigning these fundamental powers of Congress to another branch of the government for any reason.

The issue of presidential power versus congressional power to make war has come into the spotlight now that über-narcissist Donald Trump has become president. Never before has it been so important and urgent for Congress to claw back its constitutional war powers from an executive branch that has become impervious to the checks and balances that the founding fathers included in the Constitution. Checks and balances, incidentally, were established with the stated purpose of preventing the executive branch from dominating the government.

Our senators and representatives have reasons for maintaining the current arrangement. Declaring war is serious business. It commits the nation to common sacrifice, and most people are unwilling to sacrifice anything whatever for an unnecessary war, certainly not a war for the sole purpose of enriching a few defense contractors.

If you want to learn the reasons why the U.S. has been involved in “police actions” almost continually since WWII, you could not do better than to read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins. After reading Perkins, you will have gained a firm understanding of the true motives of the power elite in invading other nations. It’s not pretty.

But I digress.

Anyone who has acquired a passing acquaintance with American history knows that every war in which this country was engaged had the effect of strengthening the executive branch at the expense of the legislative. Alexander Hamilton observed this tendency in 1787. [3]

It logically follows that if war increases the strength of the executive, then the executive branch, as time passes, will become increasingly inclined to find excuses to go to war. Hamilton failed to mention that those who profit from war, especially arms manufacturers, would be numbered among a war’s most enthusiastic supporters.

Bernie Sanders recently spoke words well worth paying attention to. https://youtu.be/G7NP6rtIdZg Watching this YouTube clip set me thinking once again about the subject. It’s high time that U.S. citizens started pondering presidential versus congressional power and how to find a balance that will protect both our security and our freedom. There is no reason why we should give up either one, but if it has to be one it should be to give up some security, because if we give up liberty we will inevitably lose security. Dr. Franklin wrote “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Historical Review of Pennsylvania 1759, p.289

A government in which the executive power dominates is either a monarchy or a dictatorship. If the legislative power dominates, very little will get done; legislators are deciders, presidents are doers. Thus, the greatest danger to a republic is an overpowering executive, pushing the legislative body aside and doing what it pleases. No one’s liberty or property will be safe from a chief executive with unchecked power.

We live in dangerous times, not because of enemies abroad, but because those charged with keeping us secure and protecting our liberty are either corrupt from extreme wealth or asleep from complacency. The real danger lies in ourselves for letting this happen.

---

1. Public Law 107–243  ↩
   
2. For example: Police action, conflict, use of armed force, military actions, war on terror, right to protect, and armed humanitarion intervention. The ability of government progandists to devise euphemisms is endless.  ↩
   
3. Federalist Papers, No. 8, ¶5  ↩