Social Distancing is not a Vacation: The Corona Virus

            It is unusual for me to write on this blog about something I am capable of having a professional opinion on.  To establish myself (or I will tell you my credentials and you can choose to believe me or not, I will remain mostly anonymous on this blog), I three master’s degrees.  The first is in Applied American Politics and Policy, focusing on election politics, mostly from the 20^th century.  The second is in Urban and Regional Planning, having to do with lesser developed nations, community outreach, and self-driving cars (of all things).  Lastly, I have a degree in International Affairs, dealing with international relations and development in lesser countries.  Degrees 2 and 3 were highly related.

            I am going to talk about the current global pandemic.  I will be doing so in a manner highly critical of existing US politics and response.  I will not be going into great technical detail, please follow medical professionals for advice on that.  Instead, I will be pointing to how the US political system is failing to react to the inputs of this disaster.  If I were being paid to do this, I assure you this would have citations and diagrams.  Instead, it will just have speculation and complaints.

Social Distancing is not a Vacation

            Since the wide spread catastrophe called the Corona Virus, AKA COVID-19, the patchwork response has been social isolation.  A self-quarantine procedure which involves people working from home, avoiding public spaces (including government buildings like schools and libraries being shut), the closing of businesses (especially those in the food services industries), and the truncating of travel.

            This has been incredibly disruptive.  I typically work from home, my job being research and I still find the ambient stress and uncertainty of the situation to be killing productive drive.  I can only imagine how people used to compartmentalizing their lives into work and home are dealing with suddenly having to do office work while their pets and children surround them.  How difficult it will be to just sit down and work when you are so close to your bed, your TV, or your fridge.

            That all being said, this is not a vacation.  No matter how unproductive this time is, it is not downtime spent relaxing, exploring, or adventuring.  No one is (or at least no one should be) enjoying their time “off from work”.  The reason I bring this up is simple: I think business owners are going to try and screw their employees over by docking sick pay, vacation time, flex time, and any number of other mechanisms that are supposed to be for employees to take a break.

            You can picture this too, “You just had two weeks at home.”  There is going to be a mass turning of the screws on the working class.  To say nothing of all the firings, “In this economy we don’t need you.” While ignoring how a person’s health insurance is tied to their job and how a firing will leave them in the cold just as a global pandemic is about to hit the gas (watch, as the President and other GOP led governments around the country decide that the risk of millions of people dying is not as bad as the loss of business revenue, this is going to take off).

            I bring this all up to lead into this next point, this should have been a time for real substantive change.  A political window thru which massive policy could have and should have been pushed for by numerous political entities.  “Are there going to be massive layoffs?  Guess a Universal Basic Income will be a good welfare system to keep people fed and off the street till businesses wheels are turning again.  Better start expanding Medicare so that people can keep going to the doctor without having to worry about dying poor, every person who doesn’t get themselves checked during a pandemic is a potential plague carrier on the move.”

            Beyond that jobs that are derided and demeaned as “low skilled” are now being seen for what they truly are, FOUNDATIONAL.  People need their paperwork filed, groceries stocked, and a clean world.  These things are not grunt work to be paid a wage that does not provide a prosperous living.  “The classist veneer we have cultivated that allows us to bilk the middle class without them noticing is about to wash away as they see how important all the people we have taught them to look down on really are?  I guess we should raise the minimum wage and worker protections to keep the revolts from happening.”

I am betting rich people are breathing a sigh of relief there is not a grocer or truckers union in place that could demand permanent increases to pay.  Sure striking right now would be unthinkable, the President would fire them all and call in the army to do the job of shipping things nationally (see Ronald Reagan's treatment of air traffic controllers to see how that would work, the union busting bastard), but the fact of the matter is, if there were a national unified group to advocate to the press and to Congress their needs and political demands… things would change.  Pay would go up.  Vacation time would go up.

This event also perfectly illustrates how critical the internet is.  It is a utility and should be treated as such.  All utilities should be seen as public trusts and not for profit enterprises.  We can see the failings of the gig economy, as Airbnb has had such a wash of cancellations we are able to see how much potential housing in major cities has been swallowed up as profitable rental property.  The massive and unsustainable distortions in the housing market are coming home to roost, as people who live paycheck to paycheck may not make rent next month.

The virus is not the chain reaction currently destroying the US economy.  It is a fire that is hitting the numerous bags of gunpowder and kindling the economy is built on.  This is late stage capitalism, one that focuses on constant growth of numbers on paper but has no ability to anticipate or plan for catastrophe.  One that sees no value in people beyond their use as labor.  A system that can be devastated by a sufficiently wet cough.

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Senior Seminar, Part 12 of 12

Introduction

            This is the unedited paper I wrote for my senior seminar back in 2007.  I am posting it as a sort of trip down memory lane during our current apocalypse.

            I have become a better writer since creating this.

            I have become much better informed since writing this.

            I am a very different person than when I wrote this.

Full Introduction Here

------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

It is my conclusion that War no longer exists as it once did.  War is no longer an action of the state that can be resolved.  War is not declared, War is assumed.  It is also my conclusion that the office of the President has become far too powerful to be trusted at its current levels and there needs to be an effective check implemented in order to stem the tide of assumed powers, and to limit the scope and use of the current assumed powers of the office.

It is my final conclusion that Congressional oversight in the current venue of armed conflict does not rest in the symbolic function of non-binding resolutions, it instead relies entirely within the capacity of the Congress to withhold money from the process of military exercise and to communicate that intention in a timely enough fashion that it will be considered a reasonable response when the Congress initiates it.  I am effectively asking the United States Congress to use foresight and reason to approach a major responsibility that they have ham fisted in the past.

Moral imperatives being directed at the President through non-binding resolutions are ineffective, and historically have not been used to any effect.  The Congress’ ability to function in concert with the President is limited by the ability of the President to completely control the nature of the encounter through his assumed powers and this being the status quo must be ended in the near future with expediency.

Viet Nam was the defining conflict of the last fifty years and the modern Congress shrinks back from the imperative that conflict granted them to seek control of military affairs in a substantive fashion now, this is a mistake.  And if this mistake remains uncorrected it will mean the gradual decay of the United States Congress as a governing body, and the exaltation of the President as the sole driving force for American interests in the world.

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Senior Seminar, Part 11 of 12

Introduction

            This is the unedited paper I wrote for my senior seminar back in 2007.  I am posting it as a sort of trip down memory lane during our current apocalypse.

            I have become a better writer since creating this.

            I have become much better informed since writing this.

            I am a very different person than when I wrote this.

Full Introduction Here

------------------------------------------------

How will Congressional budgeting remain the best avenue to control of future conflicts?

The core reason that this method cannot work is that it was not advertised as a political recourse from the beginning of the Iraqi conflict.  The Congress failed to communicate their intentions to be strong legal authorities and participants within the conflict, and failed to frame for the public the exact method of their recourse should they find the conflict failing to meet with expectations, or if the conflict becomes too great a burden for the United States people.  The Congress neglected a preemptive plan of political recourse in this instance and to that end have no recourse now.

If however the United States Congress becomes more involved in actively checking the movements of the President through use of language, and their greatest Constitutional power in the overseeing of the military, the military’s budget, then they will in the future be able to effectively check the President.  Simply utilizing the responsible language of “we will not let this become another Viet Nam, and if we see the President leading us to ruin we will pull the plug,” that phrase if stated by a strong Congressional leader at the outset would have saved the significant political quagmire that is currently forming from having ever existed.

In reality the removal of money worked in Viet Nam, but there are methods the military could have utilized, if so ordered, that would have patched the logistical hole, and while the idea of American Troops pillaging conquered countries does not mesh well with a romanticized view of history, it is hardly a leap from current activities.  Utilizing the resources found in the areas they are in would allow a least temporarily for a military to function beyond the means so provided by Congress, and in effect slip this particular Congressional lead, it would rarely work in the extreme long run, but it is a possible outcome of budgetary constraints.  So this must be considered as a possible venue the President could use to avoid the collapse of a Military Conflict if the Office Holder so wished.

  

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Senior Seminar, Part 10 of 12

Introduction

            This is the unedited paper I wrote for my senior seminar back in 2007.  I am posting it as a sort of trip down memory lane during our current apocalypse.

            I have become a better writer since creating this.

            I have become much better informed since writing this.

            I am a very different person than when I wrote this.

Full Introduction Here

------------------------------------------------

Why would the process of budget removal not work in the armed conflict in Iraq?

            Currently the citizenry of the United States believes that whether they wish the conflict to end in Iraq, they are there and will utilize all of their resources to stabilize and exit the area.  The idea that any resources are being with held is not perceived as a political move against the war, as it would be intended, but might be interpreted as an irresponsible neglect of the military forces already present in the nation.  To promote the removal of money from the conflict, the loss of armor, medicine, or even basic entertainment devices for the troops would be political suicide.  Regardless as to whether the President has an incredibly low approval rating or not, the message of “support the troops, not the war” has permeated the American psyche, and no politician has the political strength of voice to clearly explain the reasoning behind the pulling out of money, and still have enough of an audience left to explain why they didn’t just remove the troops.

Why the process of budget removal work effectively in the ending of the Iraqi conflict

The President lacks the political strength to maintain the current status quo of the Iraqi conflict.  The American people have grown so tired of the current conflict that they would have patience to hear all relevant political strategies, and blaming the President has become such a common strategy that people can listen to how the Congress removing money is the only way to assail the problem, and it is the President who is not ordering the troops home.  People would be able to understand the removal of money as a political strategy to end the conflict.

Pillage

The conflict in Iraq is not the conflict in Viet Nam, the United States military is sitting on piles of unused weaponry, old but functional, the entire country has oil flowing out of it, so the militaries vehicles could run nearly indefinitely, and the military could take from the populace to satisfy their own needs as occupiers that, if the President saw it as a true need for the US military, he could order them to confiscate from the local population all that was necessary to maintain current troop operations, and then, the President could order more troops into Iraq.  Congressional removal of funds cannot stop the President from ordering subsistence combat from the military, and doing so would be within the Constitutional power of the President as Commander and Chief.  It would destroy the President politically, but the next person to take the office would never hesitate to use the same powers if he or she saw fit to do so.  The failure of Congress to financially support the army could lead to an escalation of conflict rather then an end to it as the occupation turns into conquerors.

  

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Senior Seminar, Part 9 of 12

Introduction

            This is the unedited paper I wrote for my senior seminar back in 2007.  I am posting it as a sort of trip down memory lane during our current apocalypse.

            I have become a better writer since creating this.

            I have become much better informed since writing this.

            I am a very different person than when I wrote this.

Full Introduction Here

------------------------------------------------

Non Binding Resolutions

A current moral fad within the current Congress is the non-binding resolution.  A subject so historically absent and forgotten I actually had to search multiple Congressional dictionaries to find the term defined.

A Non binding resolution is an expression of general opinion within a body of Congress.  The opinions can concern political issues, internal issues, or a goal of the House.[1]  The idea of ending poverty or drug use in America would be an example of a goal oriented resolution, though since these are not recorded thoroughly, I have been unable to find evidence that this has ever happened.  In serving the American public more constructive forms of use also occur through resolutions, as they can be used to the appointment of special and short term committees.

As there is no legal weight the function of the Resolution is to be symbolic.  However since they do not actually do anything, and the Congress is able to do actual functions with the considerable power they yield as it springs forth from the Constitution, more often when non-binding resolutions are looked at, they are at best seen as scarecrows by the American public, taking on the appearance of a threat or the pledge to explore more activity.  When viewed most negatively, they are seen as false posturing, an attempt to use a current issue to gain a quick political boon without any substantive effort toward forming a solution.

I can not find a single target of these resolutions in my research.  And this leads me to conclude one of two things.  Either they were not used in the past, or they were not considered worth analysis in modern times, and forgotten.  In the long run of history it could be said that such resolutions lack any symbolic weight at all, serving solely as holograms of actual political maneuvering.

How does Congressional budgeting affect the process of making war?

One of the functions pertaining to the military most clearly defined within the Constitution related to the actions of Congress is the maintaining of a Navy, and the supporting and raising of armies.[2]  They are the providers of the military for which the President is the decider.  If the United States Congress wished it could choose not to raise or maintain a military, and could withdraw funds from the current military.  No gasoline for tanks, no bombs for the aircraft.  Warfare could be halted because the Congress does not provide the equipment necessary for the conflict to take place.

During the Viet Nam Conflict, or as it is known in the popular vernacular the Viet Nam War, Congress used their ability to neglect the military to end aggressive movements into the nation of Cambodia, a boarder nation of Viet Nam and a haven for forces that were striking against American forces.  The attacks on Cambodia were seen by the Congress as an unnecessary escalation of conflict within the War, and they chose not to support such efforts.  This removal of funds is the only instance I could find of Congress using this ability to proper effect.

Though this tightening of money expenditures was successful in Viet Nam, the effort was a rare occurrence and serves more appropriately as an anomaly in procedural structure than an example of governance working correctly.

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

[1] American Congressional Dictionary

[2] Constitution Article I, Section 8

Senior Seminar, Part 8 of 12

Introduction

            This is the unedited paper I wrote for my senior seminar back in 2007.  I am posting it as a sort of trip down memory lane during our current apocalypse.

            I have become a better writer since creating this.

            I have become much better informed since writing this.

            I am a very different person than when I wrote this.

Full Introduction Here

------------------------------------------------

Current Congressional Relations

The current President Bush has utilized all of the previous powers assumed by the office of the Presidency.  In the wake of the September eleventh attacks by the terrorist organization Al Qaeda.  As there was no definitive state controlled by the organization, and the United States wanted to be clear that its position was the elimination of the Organizations members and not the people and culture which the organization had grown within, war was not declared.  Instead a massive bombing campaign against the chief residence of Al Qaeda, the nation of Afghanistan.  After failing to eliminate the organization and establishing a regime in the nation that was friendly to the US, the United States left a significant population of military and Federal Investigators in the nation and left.  All of this was done without declaring war on anything but the concept of Terrorism.

President Bush did convince Congress in both that military conflict and the following conflict in Iraq to back military action, but there is a question of ethical behavior in this convincing.  The Congress does not have the same military intelligence that the President does, and they rely on the President to act in their stead as leader of the military, all of which I have previously mentioned.  However, when the invasion of Iraq was formulated and the justification explained, the idea that there would be weapons of mass destruction in a hostile, terrorist friendly, and tyrant ruled Middle East nation that we had previously engaged in armed conflict, there is some question as to the validity of the reports of whether the intelligence was credible.

When it turned out several months later that the levels of weapons found in Iraq was vastly below the number that were theorized to be present, and the actual relationship between Iraq and the attacks on September Eleventh were contrived from piece mail evidence, the question of how much trust can be placed in the President was raised.  The question as to the current President’s validity remains, but the question that no one bothered to ask, whether or not the office of the Presidency is the issue, was never raised.

Most currently the relationship between the two branches of government has shifted significantly, where as before the Vice President was seen as lording over the Congress.[1]  VP Richard Cheney made full use of the access granted to him by the Constitution.[2]  This access was never before so thoroughly explored by a Vice President, however the Vice President currently has reined back in the face of a less welcoming overall body.

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

[1] General mood felt by Congress within the Article by Robert Kuttner

[2] Constitution Article I, Section 3

Senior Seminar, Part 7 of 12

Introduction

            This is the unedited paper I wrote for my senior seminar back in 2007.  I am posting it as a sort of trip down memory lane during our current apocalypse.

            I have become a better writer since creating this.

            I have become much better informed since writing this.

            I am a very different person than when I wrote this.

Full Introduction Here

------------------------------------------------

Why Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt were not exceeding their authority.

During times of war the President does gain an exceptionally large amount of power necessary to effectively command the populace toward victory.  Both of these instances were taken as part of much larger conflicts, and in such instances were the correct thing to do.  As both were taken in the context of war, neither action can be said to be used as precedence to take action in the bounds of peace time.  The absence of war from practice also prohibits such expansions of power.  These are not citable as true abuses of power.

Perpetual War

Currently the United States is engaged in multiple armed conflicts throughout the world, the President uses the word war to describe actions against drugs, poverty, and terrorism.  There are cultural wars, wars of spirituality, and numerous instances of such conflicts turning into real violence.  The United States has stopped declaring war, but in doing so we have not stopped being in conflict, and over tie through a loss of epistemological and legal context have entered into a perpetual state of perceived and actual war.  It is not uncommon to see the President justify actions taken in regards to nearly anything by using the phrase “we are at war” when we are not legally so.

Since we are perceiving our selves as being in war even when not legally in such a conflict, the distinctions cease to exist, and the capacity to assume additional powers in order to properly address conflict persist regardless of Congress’ having declared anything.  So the President detains people, the President uses Executive Privilege and bombs keep dropping.  The United States holds position a hairs breadth away from the President simply assuming all military powers he could assume during war time, and then expanding those powers to suit additional goals of the United States.

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Senior Seminar, Part 6 of 12

Introduction

            This is the unedited paper I wrote for my senior seminar back in 2007.  I am posting it as a sort of trip down memory lane during our current apocalypse.

            I have become a better writer since creating this.

            I have become much better informed since writing this.

            I am a very different person than when I wrote this.

Full Introduction Here

------------------------------------------------

Congress and the President: Wartimes Past

In an opening period of the Civil War the United States Congress was not in session, and half of its regular members were no longer acknowledging the authority of the body.  Numerous persons within the bounds of Washington were potentially tied to the southern states, or were at the very least sympathetic to the cause of the Confederate States.  As a defensive measure President Abraham Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and began to detain people who were under suspicion of treason and insurrection.  The problem with this practice is that the Writ is specifically cited within the section of the Constitution under which the duties of the Congress are addressed, and is not mentioned within the scope of Presidential powers or duties.[1]  The President had fully exceeded his authority.

The President did explain this away once the Congress managed to reconvene months later, and few could have disagreed with the immediacy of such a function needing to be carried out.  “It cannot be believed the Framers of the Instrument intended that in every case, the danger should run its course, until Congress could be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case by the rebellion…”[2]  And its continued use throughout the war went unchallenged until the practice had already begun to include those who supported piece with the Confederacy and dissolution of the Union, and wasn’t stopped until the war was ending.

Essentially the President can justify assuming powers of the Congress in the case of immediacy.  But since immediacy is not clearly defined there is nothing to prevent the President from assuming other duties of the Congress if they are in need.  One could say that the ability to appoint members to positions when Congress is out of session could be expanded to include emergency appointments and executions of all Constitutional duties when the Congress is out of session.[3]  How this would work is that the President perceives a vacancy in law that requires immediate consideration, and an immediate solution.  Since the Congress is out of session, the President creates the law, mandating that the legal position needed to be filled.  The law will expire when the Congress returns to session, but then there exists potentially a political momentum.  If the Congress says that the President exceeded his authority and squashes the emergency law, then the President could frame the argument that the Congress fails to act in the best interest of the American people and has forced the President to take action, gaining a political win which could be turned into another emergency legal appointment.  Alternatively if the Congress sees the potential effectiveness of the new law, they could simply endorse it, and cement this emergency law construction as an assumed power.  None of this has happened, but it could happen using the idea that the President assumes Constitutional powers from the Congress when they are out of session.  One might question then why the President does not use this assumed position of additional authority to declare war, and the answer is that it is not necessary for the President to declare war to order military forces into armed conflict.  The President does not want to use a taboo subject such as war, when he is under no legal obligation to do so.

The ability to assume additional Constitutional power also comes with the process of waging war.  During the beginning of the Second World War, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed the Congress that price control over domestic products was imperative to prevent the spiraling fall of the United States economy and an explosive growth in the cost of living.  Addressing Congress, who had at this point already declared war, the President stated “In the event that the Congress should fail to act, and act adequately, I shall accept the responsibility, and I will act.”[4]

This is an instance that the President has threatened to assume Congressional powers under the need of immediacy.  This was as I have stated before done during a time of war, a special set of circumstances that President FDR underlines as giving him authority to assume such powers.  “The President has the powers, under the Constitution and under congressional acts, to take measures necessary to avert disaster which would interfere with the winning of the war.”[5]  The aforementioned Constitutional powers are assumed under an incredibly wide interpretation, and I have been unable to find such Congressional acts.  President FDR is ordering Congress to follow his directions, or they will be superseded by the immediate needs of the war.

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

[1] Constitution Article 1, Section 9

[2] Abraham Lincoln, Message to Congress in Special Session

[3] Constitution Article II, Section2

[4] Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message to Congress

[5] Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message to Congress

Senior Seminar, Part 5 of 12

Introduction

            This is the unedited paper I wrote for my senior seminar back in 2007.  I am posting it as a sort of trip down memory lane during our current apocalypse.

            I have become a better writer since creating this.

            I have become much better informed since writing this.

            I am a very different person than when I wrote this.

Full Introduction Here

------------------------------------------------

Executive Privilege: an Assumed Power

The President through broad interpretations of the Constitution has assumed numerous duties, and created positions in that line of thought.  One of the rights that the President has assumed in recent times to insure the confidentiality of units under his command and the safety of covert agents in the power of Executive Privilege.  This is the ability of the President to simply withhold testimony, documents, and participation in Congressional probes under the guise of national security.  Short of the Congress ordering the release of documents, and even this ability is unenforceable due to this assumed power, the Congress has no way of accessing the inner workings of the President.

Unfortunately the power of Executive Privilege remains even though it has proven to act as a cover for illegal activities in the past, through the efforts of President Richard Nixon, and it has been used to obscure unethical activities in the office of President Bill Clinton.  As such Executive Privilege has been tainted and simply cannot be trusted as a legitimate use of Presidential immunity to authority.  But it remains.

Should Executive Privilege Remain?

Executive Privilege flows from a decision made by the Supreme Court preceding the resigning of Nixon from the office of President.  President Nixon was ordered to allow a lower court judge access to the confidential tapes of the Presidents conversations and reveal only those pertinent to the investigation of the President’s involvement in the Watergate scandal.[1]

The problem is that the President could have simply refused to comply asserting that the Supreme Court had no authority to review the President on his performance of his duties in the realm of National Security, and since they had no purview there, then they could not order review of any of his conversations, as they all could relate to national security issues.  Since this can be verified only by review, a review that will not be granted, then such a position cannot be over ridden, essentially, since the benefit of the doubt is granted to those under investigation, including the purview of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the tie goes to the runner, and the President can choose not to comply with the attainment of any documents in his office as they all could be said to interrelate to national security, and are beyond the reach of the courts.

This is not conducive to a socially responsible government.  Government requires transparency, and accountability.  The ambitions of political beings cannot check each other if an office is unassailable.  Executive Privilege is not protected by the Constitution and should be removed as an ethically questionable source of power for the office of the President.

The Need for Executive Privilege

            If you were to strip away the President’s ability to withhold documentation, making their every consideration public it would be impossible to address any number of issues in a candid and direct manner.  The President is elected not to sit in a clear plastic bubble and be analyzed, he is elected to be the nimble enforcement branch of the government, and the fact that the modern media systems work at fantastic speed to distribute considerations, possibilities, and even speculations, the idea that actual military and political planning would be distributed in such a fast and context free environment would be politically, and even literally, damaging to the United States.  If it was reveled that the President was given a list of potential nuclear strike targets within a nation that could be invaded for failure to fulfill treaty obligations, the ramifications would be unimaginable, regardless of whether or not the nuclear option was being thoroughly explored or considered only as a last resort, or even if such projections were included to complete a policy of thorough strategic planning on part of the military.  News like this causes havoc, and the President is elected to act as an agent of the public and insulate them from these considerations.

            Opaque is a necessary quality of the President’s work, for security reasons, and for political reasons.  This privilege could be abused, but if it were, a rational actor of the United States Congress or Court system could see through it and act accordingly against the President.

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

[1] United States vs. Nixon

Senior Seminar, Part 4 of 12

Introduction

            This is the unedited paper I wrote for my senior seminar back in 2007.  I am posting it as a sort of trip down memory lane during our current apocalypse.

            I have become a better writer since creating this.

            I have become much better informed since writing this.

            I am a very different person than when I wrote this.

Full Introduction Here

------------------------------------------------

Congressional Role in War

There is in theory to be a cooperative or even dependent nature on the issue of foreign policy between the President and the Congress, with the Congress putting their final approval on the subject, and the President being the initial arbiter of the process.  It is stated in the Constitution The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.[1]  But it is possible to have agreements that exist entirely off paper, free of congressional approval, cease fires being a very obvious example of this.

Since the Congress can make laws to enforce their role as declarers of war, something which has essentially become meaningless as it is very clear that military force requires no declaration of intent in order for it to take place; the Congress has made attempts to reinsert themselves into the position.

How does the effectiveness of this Congressional role define the Presidency’s relation to Congress concerning war?

The War Powers Resolution passed in 1973 over Presidential veto.  It was vetoed by the President who cited constitutional issues, and since that time this resolution has never been checked by the Supreme Court for constitutional legality.  Regardless of the acts actual testing, it is seemingly the only foothold Congress has left on the process of war waged by the United States.  Basing its arguments, as it so states within its first operative clause, on Section 8: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof,” and also most clearly on the power “To declare War.”[2]

The Resolution states that the President must make the Congress active consultants and participants in the process of armed conflict, in effect restoring their position of declaring war in a less traditional channel.  However as no President has accepted this interpretation the Congress has not been used it the full capacity described within the resolution.  And since the Congress has yet to bring impeachment charges against any president for not following this law, it would seem that the Congress does not believe in the validity of the work either.

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

  

[1] Constitution Article II, Section 2

[2] The War Resolution Act 1973