Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), ever the congressionalist, recently
introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate that would require approval from
congress before military action could be taken in response to emergencies in
other nations[1].
Webb’s legislation would disable future presidents from
making decisions unilaterally to use military power for humanitarian
interventions that do not involve direct threats to U.S. interests.
While I agree with Sen. Webb that the president’s power to
use military force has grown tremendously[2],
given the fractious state of the last two congresses[3],
Sen. Webb’s legislation seems misplaced, holding out the real possibility that
military action in response to foreign crises is paralyzed from the outset due
to the toxic partisan environment that has consumed the congress.
As the ideological “purges” continue within the Republican
Party[4],
and compromise becomes buried deeper in the recesses of congressional history,
relying on the U.S. Congress for quick and important actions appears all the
more foolhardy, though well intentioned.
This leaves, of course, the prospect that future presidents
will abuse their substantial power to use military force without the support of
congress. But when and if this situation were to arise, it would then be an
appropriate time to close the “loopholes” in how the Constitution is
interpreted.
All too often, in legislation like Sen. Webb’s, the
consequences are more severe than the previous state of affairs. Given the
partisanship in the U.S. Congress, this may well be the case.
[1] http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2012/may/10/tdmain03-webb-urges-congressional-approval-for-for-ar-1903795/
No comments:
Post a Comment