George Will (cc photo: Keith Allison)
On Sunday George Will wrote a strong Washington Post column about Obama, the Libya War and the law:
In a bipartisan cascade of hypocrisies, a liberal president, with the collaborative silence of most congressional conservatives, is traducing the War Powers Resolution.
Enacted in 1973 over President Nixon’s veto, the WPR may or may not be wise. It is, however, unquestionably a law, and Barack Obama certainly is violating it.
“Liberals are situational ethicists regarding presidential warmaking,” Will explained, going on to suggest that George W. Bush would have been treated much differently than Obama. And Will had harsh words for John McCain:
“No president,” says Sen. John McCain, “has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and neither do I. So I don’t feel bound by any deadline.” Oh? No law is actually a law if presidents and senators do not “recognize” it? Now, there is an interesting alternative to judicial review, and an indicator of how executive aggrandizement and legislative dereliction of duty degrade the rule of law.
So liberals are inconsistent, and John McCain is making an absurd argument about the Act being unconstitutional.
George Will’s record on the War Powers Act, though, has been all over the map (not unlike his position—or positions—on the filibuster). Here’s where he seems to have started:
September 15, 1983:
President Nixon was wrong to veto the War Powers Act, which Congress passed over his veto in 1973. A veto was too good for it. He should have mailed it back to Capitol Hill unsigned, with postage due, and with a note saying that although it always is entertaining to read Congress’ opinions about constitutional construction, the Constitution clearly vests in the president the power to control the armed forces.
November 11, 1984:
Repeal of the War Powers Act. It is unwieldy, unclear and clearly unconstitutional as a derogation of the responsibilities of the commander in chief vested in the presidency and exercised by most occupants of that office. No president has yet quite complied with the act. Repeal would be the straightforward approach.
During the run up to the first Gulf War (11/15/90), Will seemed to be softening a bit, but his take still seemed pretty clear:
The War Powers Act is of dubious constitutionality and cumbersome formality, and the president’s war of nerves with Iraq should not be undercut by a clock controlling when Congress must ratify or reject Desert Shield.
And then something seemed to switch. Under the headline “McCain’s Honest Passion,” Will expressed fondness (5/9/99) for McCain’s anti–War Powers position during the Yugoslavia war, where he called on Bill Clinton to embrace his executive authority and wage as wide a war as he deemed necessary—including using U.S. ground forces. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, wasn’t so supportive—some Republicans cited the War Powers Act to oppose Clinton’s bombing.
McCain was, in Will’s estimation, getting things right:
McCain said he found himself in the “curious” but “not unexpected” position of defending the president’s constitutional authority without the president’s support. Although McCain thought his resolution constitutionally redundant, he offered it “in the forlorn hope that the president would take courage from it, and find the resolve to do his duty.” Said McCain, “The president does not want the power he possesses by law because the risks inherent in its exercise have paralyzed him.”
A week earlier the House, with an incoherence produced by the timidity of careerists, voted against declaring war, against supporting the air war, against withdrawal of U.S. forces, against use of ground troops without congressional approval and against stopping what they will not support. Many House Republicans embraced what McCain considers the War Powers Act’s unconstitutional presumptions about the limits on presidential war-making.
Will went on to argue that “many House Republicans, claiming an authority Congress neither possesses constitutionally nor cares to exercise, embraced the Act.”
Like George Will said, liberals need to figure out where they stand on the War Powers Act. Otherwise they just seem wildly inconsistent.
George Will is, and always has been, a maggot feeding off the cancerous sore of Elitist power — and that’s the nicest thing I can think to say about him.
Article I – The Legislative Branch, Section 8 – Powers of Congress include:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
What part of this clause of the US constitution is difficult to understand?
To me the WPA stretched the meaning of Article I Section 8 just a bit. To me one of the items of the Federalists that I do agree with is this. The means to declare war by voice or deed should not be left up to one person. So far that is how it has been operating. 3 months into a military action, how many in Congress have the temerity if not back bone to tell the President, “NO more money” for his adventure?
Yes, Only Congress Can Declare War! Of course, the last time Congress declared war was WWII.
President Truman used the United Nations to perform a “Police Action” in Korea with an OK by the Congress. Ever since then, Presidents have started wars merely informing the Congress.
George Will really does have” sum splanin to do”- in regards to his past statements.They do seem at odds with his most present article.As far as his article……It is correct.We have traversed far along a dangerous hazy road in allowing the presidents to step outside their powers.
Add states rights to the list of issues that cons can’t decide where they stand
Dear George. I always kinda liked you even if you are on the wrong side of the fence. I’m not second-guessing many of president Obama’s decisions. Let’s not forget the me mess he inherited, both economic and military. I doubt that you could do better in his shoes. It’s easy to criticise when you don’t have to make the hard decisions. // Jean Clelland-Morin
Jean Clelland-Morin
Put me down for questioning ALL of Obama’s decisions.And also put me down for recognizing that the “problem” he inherited can also be left on the doorstep of DEm house leadership 2 years on the frontside and 2 years on the back of the Bush Presidency.4 out of 8 years!Not to mention fanny and freddy and the complete left stewardship of that seminal disaster.
Ps
I have to add Jean…….Have you seen the economic indicators?This week is is like a giant sinkhole.His economic ideas and agenda;his keynesian beliefs ,tarps,sytmulus,bailouts have all failed.It may rankle you to no end ,but only through the recreation of wealth can we move toward a better day.He is not equipped to whip this economy up the ladder.He understands only classic tax n spend methods.He and his administration are anchors about the necks of our economy.To vote for him in again would be the height of folly.I would say by now the learning curve has kicked in and he understands a few hard truths.He would undoubtably now be qualified as he was not in his first term.But ideologically he cannot tack toward what would heal this country.It is foreign to his DNA.