The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
War and the Separation of Powers
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A popular way to begin the first day of class in constitutional law in many American law schools is to ask the students what sets the U.S. Constitution apart from all others. Usually, they answer that it’s the clauses that guarantee the freedom of speech, privacy and due process.

Yes, each of those guarantees — if upheld — is vital to restraining government, but the overarching and most important unique aspect of the Constitution is the separation of powers. The constitutions of many totalitarian countries pay lip service to free speech, privacy and due process, but none has the strict separation of powers that the U.S. does.

Under our Constitution, the Congress writes the laws, the president enforces them and the courts interpret them; and those powers and functions may not constitutionally be mixed or exchanged. The Congress also declares war. The president also wages war. The courts also invalidate the acts of the other two branches when they exceed their constitutional powers.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the separation of powers is integral to the Constitution not to preserve the prerogatives of each branch of government but to divide governmental powers among the branches so as to keep power diffused — and thereby limited and protective of personal freedom.

James Madison, who wrote the Constitution, wanted not only this diffusion by separation but also tension — even jealousy — among the branches so as to keep each in check.

Thus, even if one branch of government consented to ceding an essential power to another branch, such a giveaway would be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has ruled, because the core functions of each branch of the federal government may not be delegated away to either of the other two without violating the separation of powers.

I am writing about this not as a history or constitutional law mini-lesson but rather because it’s necessary background information to address a real and contemporary problem. Two weeks ago, on the basis of evidence so flimsy that his own secretary of defense rejected it — and without any legal or constitutional authority — President Donald Trump dispatched 110 missiles to bomb certain military and civilian targets in Syria, where the president argued the Syrian government manufactured, stored or used chemical weapons.

Trump did not seek a congressional declaration of war, nor did he comply with the U.N. Charter, a treaty to which both the U.S. and Syria are signatories. Though Trump did not articulate any statutory basis for his use of the military, his predecessors often cited as legal support for their unconstitutional uses of military force two statutes — one enacted in 2001 and the other in 2002, each known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF.

ORDER IT NOW

The AUMFs refer to either the Taliban or al-Qaida or their affiliated forces in Afghanistan or Iraq as targets or to pursuing those who caused the attacks in America on 9/11 or those who harbor weapons of mass destruction.
Can the president legally use military force to attack a foreign land without a serious threat or legal obligation or a declaration of war from Congress? In a word: No. Here is the back story.

The Constitution is clear that only Congress can declare war and only the president can wage it. Federal law and international treaties provide that — short of defending the country against an actual attack — without a congressional declaration of war, the president can only constitutionally use military force to repel an enemy whose attack on America is imminent or to defend U.S. citizens and property in foreign lands from foreign attack or in aid of an ally pursuant to a treaty with that ally.

In the case of Trump’s bombing Syria earlier this month, none of those conditions was met.

Prior to the strike on Syria — but no doubt prodded by the prospect of it — a bipartisan group of senators offered legislation supported by the president that would rescind both AUMFs, which are now seriously outdated and of no useful moral or legal authority, in favor of an unconstitutional mishmash that would permit a president to strike whomever and wherever he pleases. The president would be restrained only by a vote of Congress — after hostilities have commenced.

Such a statute would give the president far more powers than he has now, would directly violate Congress’ war-making powers by ceding them away to the president, would defy the Supreme Court on the unconstitutionality of giving away core governmental functions, would commit the U.S. to foreign wars without congressional and thus popular support, and would invite dangerous mischief by any president wanting to attack any enemy — real or imagined, old or new — for foreign or domestic political purposes, whether American interests are at stake or not.

The proponents of this legislation will argue that Congress would retain its war-making powers by its ability to restrain the president. That is a naive contention because congressional restraint, which can come only in the form of prohibitory legislation or withdrawal of funds, would certainly be met by a presidential veto — and a veto can be overridden only by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate.

What’s going on here? It is little more than the lust of the military-industrial complex and its allies in both major political parties in Congress for war. War unifies disparate politics, arouses deep patriotic instincts, enhances the government’s success in obtaining the people’s sacrifices, enriches arms-makers and kills innocents. War is the health of the state.

The Constitution, written in war’s aftermath, strictly limits its offensive use only to when the people’s representatives in Congress have recognized a broad national consensus behind it.

When Donald Trump ran for president, he condemned foreign wars that have served no real American purpose and he condemned presidential war-making; and he promised to end both. Where is that Donald Trump today?

Copyright 2018 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    I have lost my respect for Mr. Napolitano over RussiaGate, etc., and submitted many negative comments since last November.

    But this is well written and true.

    Unfortunately, practically no one cares.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Wait a second — I think I spoke too soon.

    “.. or to defend U.S. citizens and property in foreign lands from foreign attack or in aid of an ally pursuant to a treaty with that ally.”

    What’s with those last bits? I would appreciate an historic example, as well as a hypothetical with respect to Syria, that in Mr. Napolitano’s view comport with the Constitution.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. “The Constitution is clear that only Congress can declare war ….”

    The Constitution is dead Andy. Our Supreme Court is having an extended Weekend With Bernie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. David JW says:

    Andrew Napolitano, what happens when the courts stray into legislating from the bench or overriding executive action? Judicial activism threatens the separation of power and the rule of law in itself, but this is rarely mentioned by the liberal media.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. “What’s going on here? It is little more than the lust of the military-industrial complex and its allies in both major political parties in Congress for war. War unifies disparate politics, arouses deep patriotic instincts, enhances the government’s success in obtaining the people’s sacrifices, enriches arms-makers and kills innocents. War is the health of the state.”

    I disagree. What good are profits and the “unification of disparate politics” (whatever that is) when your country’s reduced to a pile of nuclear ash? Trump’s war crimes in Syria flirt with planetary extinction. There’s no satisfactory “worldly” explanation for the U.S. government’s warmongering madness. We’re dealing with a Biblical evil here; Trump and his handlers are what the Bible would describe as “demon-possessed,” IMO.

    (BTW not only has the concept of “separation of powers” failed us, but what about the enlistment oath of the people on those ships? Surely some of the people on those ships involved in launching the missiles at Syrian targets must have realize that they were committing war crimes. They swore an oath to “support and defend” the U.S. constitution, not to help psychopaths in high places trash it. They must also have realized that by their actions they put not only themselves in danger but their families back home as well. I’m surprised and disappointed that there’s been no apparent resistance to Trump’s crimes from the U.S. military).

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Your comment implies that the problem is new, or has substantially worsened, with President Trump.

    You don’t really believe that, do you?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harold Smith
    "What’s going on here? It is little more than the lust of the military-industrial complex and its allies in both major political parties in Congress for war. War unifies disparate politics, arouses deep patriotic instincts, enhances the government’s success in obtaining the people’s sacrifices, enriches arms-makers and kills innocents. War is the health of the state."

    I disagree. What good are profits and the "unification of disparate politics" (whatever that is) when your country's reduced to a pile of nuclear ash? Trump's war crimes in Syria flirt with planetary extinction. There's no satisfactory "worldly" explanation for the U.S. government's warmongering madness. We're dealing with a Biblical evil here; Trump and his handlers are what the Bible would describe as "demon-possessed," IMO.

    (BTW not only has the concept of "separation of powers" failed us, but what about the enlistment oath of the people on those ships? Surely some of the people on those ships involved in launching the missiles at Syrian targets must have realize that they were committing war crimes. They swore an oath to "support and defend" the U.S. constitution, not to help psychopaths in high places trash it. They must also have realized that by their actions they put not only themselves in danger but their families back home as well. I'm surprised and disappointed that there's been no apparent resistance to Trump's crimes from the U.S. military).

    Your comment implies that the problem is new, or has substantially worsened, with President Trump.

    You don’t really believe that, do you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
    Well of course I believe that. Orange Clown's whole campaign was apparently a calculated bait-and-switch fraud from the beginning.

    Now that I see what Orange Clown is doing in Syria, for example, I understand why the "deep state" chose him rather than Clinton: Under the cover of his pre-election intimations and disingenuous campaign rhetoric, Orange Clown was able to quickly increase the U.S. military footprint in Syria; something that Clinton wouldn't have been able to get away with (without starting WW3), IMO.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @anonymous
    Your comment implies that the problem is new, or has substantially worsened, with President Trump.

    You don’t really believe that, do you?

    Well of course I believe that. Orange Clown’s whole campaign was apparently a calculated bait-and-switch fraud from the beginning.

    Now that I see what Orange Clown is doing in Syria, for example, I understand why the “deep state” chose him rather than Clinton: Under the cover of his pre-election intimations and disingenuous campaign rhetoric, Orange Clown was able to quickly increase the U.S. military footprint in Syria; something that Clinton wouldn’t have been able to get away with (without starting WW3), IMO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    I have lost my respect for Mr. Napolitano over RussiaGate, etc., and submitted many negative comments since last November.

    But this is well written and true.

    Unfortunately, practically no one cares.

    Wait a second — I think I spoke too soon.

    “.. or to defend U.S. citizens and property in foreign lands from foreign attack or in aid of an ally pursuant to a treaty with that ally.”

    What’s with those last bits? I would appreciate an historic example, as well as a hypothetical with respect to Syria, that in Mr. Napolitano’s view comport with the Constitution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored