alle@ihuxb.UUCP (11/11/83)
CBS News was reporting this morning that 7 Democratic Congressmen have introduced a measure calling for the impeachment of President Reagan for sending the Marines into Lebanon. They apparently felt that he had usurped the Constitutionally granted power of the Congress to wage war. I don't think I need to comment on how ridiculous this is. Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
welsch@houxu.UUCP (11/11/83)
Of course you forget to mention that Reagan's acts of war against Grenada, without a formal declaration of war is unconstitutional and an impeachable offense. Unfortunately, the invasion is so popular that there is little that can be done. Please note, the US could have evacuated the students without overthrowing the government of Grenada. Larry Welsch houxu!welsch
russ@mit-vax.UUCP (11/18/83)
My intent is not to comment on the correctness of President Reagan's sending troops to Grenada, but rather on its Constitutionality (which apparently some Congressmen have called into question). It is my understanding that the President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and as such has final say on decisions concerning their actions. When the debate was going on over invocation of the War Powers Act with respect to Lebanon, I wondered if this act might not itself be un-Constitutional. (As I recall, it was vetoed by President Nixon for this reason, but the veto was overridden by Congress.) Are there any Constitutional experts out there who'd like to take a stab at this one? I would welcome any *reasoned* viewpoints. No flames, please; I've devoted some effort to keeping my opinions on Lebanon, Grenada, and President Reagan out of this. Russell Finn ..!mit-vax!russ
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (11/18/83)
Ah, the War Powers Act. Glad someone finally brought it up. The purpose of the War Powers Act is to distinguish between the President's authority as Commander in Chief, and the Congress' authority to declare war. Let me first quote the relevant sections of the Constitution: Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power .... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; Article II, Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Cheif of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. Where do you draw the line between the two functions? In an age when a war can be fought without formal declaration, what is Congress' role? Nixon did indeed veto it because he felt it infringed on the powers of the Presidency (though of course, such an opinion is just that, and is not legally binding). On the other hand, some liberals opposed it because they felt it legalized a power the President never really had before: to send troops into combat without the permission of Congress. Despite this opposition, the Act was passed over Nixon's veto. The Supreme Court has never ruled on it. A new complication arose within the last year. The Court struck down the so-called "legislative veto", whereby Congress could provide, by law, for a mechanism that would let it block an act of an executive department. One case in point concerned FTC rules: Congress tried to set things up so that one house could pass a resolution disapproving any new FTC rule. The Court held that Congress could act only by passing a bill in both houses, and either getting the President to sign it, or passing it over his veto. Based on this ruling, some people have claimed that the War Powers Act is invalid, since it is indeed a form of legislative veto. On the other hand, it does try to reconcile two conflicting Constitutional provisions. A group of liberal Representatives has now filed suit against the President, claiming that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, and that he had no right to send U.S. troops to Grenada. I suspect that it will be thrown out of court as moot, as the troops will almost certainly be withdrawn before any ruling can be made.