The rush to war: Assessing both UK and US checks and balances

Great Debates
1

Bush wants war, no question. Pretty likely to get it, too. The US people seemingly don’t want war, at least not without evidence of WMD and/or a second UN mandate or at least a few allies (to lend, presumably, some kind of moral justification) – Congress has seemingly already handed him carte blanche to do whatever he wants.

Quite where in all of that lies the democratic will of the people, I’m not sure but I’ll leave it for those better versed to explain. I will say that, from the outside, it looks like the will of the people can and will be usurped for whatever ends the executive determine, personal self-interest is often cited as a prime motive for this administration, though. What about curtailing or better defining Executive Privilege, is that an issue ?
Blair, on the other hand, seemingly cannot go to war and expect to personally survive – his political career would be over if he tried to do that in the present circumstances. The people don’t want it (81% at present). In fact, at this point I think there remains at least three checks on Blair / the Executive taking action against the will of the people:

  1. Resignations from his Cabinet, prompting a Parliamentary Vote of Confidence which Blair would lose (and Gordon Brown would assume the leadership and not go to war),

  2. A Parliamentary vote of Confidence without Cabinet resignations, but resulting in the same, and

  3. God help us if it came to it, but Queenie raising an eyebrow, Blair ignoring it and she sacking him for being a total pillock in the face of overwhelming public opposition, and (her) summoning Brown to replace him
    Fwiow, what I like about the UK at the moment is that it’s seemingly all about the elected chamber, the Lords have no input and don’t matter very much at all in this scenario – it points up their role as a second legislative House only. Period.

I also like the immediacy, the dynamism and the quality of scrutiny / public debate – if you don’t like what we have, I think it’s worth taking a look elsewhere. I do believe the quality of debate is unusually good, here, and I like that Blair is pulled over the coals, in public, weekly.

So, despite the strains, the creaking, the stretching of the democratic seams just now, I think I’m reasonably happy with the checks and balances in the UK – no hijacking of the democratic process here, at present things seem to be holding up.

Am I being naïve about the UK, do we have other checks, fewer checks; how do our US friends view their checks and balances ?

2

Okay, the title should read:

‘The rush to war: An interesting point at which to assess both UK and US constitutional checks and balances’

(If a Mod is around…please!) A better abbreviation might be:

‘The rush to war: Assessing both UK and US checks and balances’

3

You might be over-estimating what the Commons can do. The PM can essentially commit us to war without consulting the Cabinet let alone the Commons and there is no way at all the Crown would dare exercise the Royal Perogative.

Blair has explicitly ruled out a Commons vote until the tanks are rolling. Blair, I think, sees this as a matter of principle and I think he’d be willing to over-ride opposition, even if it ends his career further down the line. I just wish he’d display similar backbone when dealing with the Countryside Alliance over hunting and the NHS Consultants obstruction of health reform.

4

With growing unease. Congress unconscionably weakened the Constitutionally established separation of powers when they resolved to give to the President authority to “use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force” to “enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions… defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.”

Senator Robert Byrd, a man I’ve little cause to admire but who has capably taken on the role of elder statesman, chided his colleagues:

5

London Calling wrote:

I really don’t have an iron in this fire, but instead of “second”, did you mean “third”? Or “tenth”? I mean, I don’t see any justification for war, and I recognize zero UN ethical authority. But really, if people are going to play the game, then this business of pretending that the inspectors haven’t announced that there are thousands of WMDs unaccounted for, and that the UN hasn’t been passing stupid resolutions about this for ten years is ridiculous.

It reminds me of that scene from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest where the guy keeps saying, “Just hit me one more time… Just hit me one more time… Just hit me one more time…” Criminey. When the farce becomes a farce, is it a double farce or a farce squared? Or still just a plain farce?

6

I am going to need some help from those more intimate with US Constitutional law, but I will put in what I know and what I think about what I do not know. So I could be wrong, even on what I think I know :stuck_out_tongue:

The President, as CiC, can take action against anyone. He does not have to have a war declaration from Congress to take action against Iraq. That is his power provided to him by the Constitution. On the face value of it, there is nothing the people can do if he does that. Of course, without a Congressional declaration of war, Congress can withold funds to the military and with all of the supplies drying up we could force him to stop by starvation. I would imagine there are checks and balances of course. Like maybe if the President was shown to somehow endanger the US, or make irrational decisions he could be impeached or maybe relieved of duty. The last is just a guess and maybe wrong because the president is a civilian even though he is commander of the military.

But, if some of the things I heard was correct, Bush may get his declaration even if he goes in without a un resolution. If that happens, and the powers that be provide him with what he needs, the most youwill see from us is another vietnam era protest. The most I said, but not likely. I think our lessons from that have taught the protesters that you can go too far even exercising your freedoms.

7

You think that the fact that Bush got approval from Congress means that the “separation of powers” part of the Constitution has been violated?

“Congress shall have power to declare war…” Bush wants a war, Congress says, in essence, “Go ahead”. This is a violation?

Someone should tell Byrd that Congressional resolutions do not authorize China, India, or Pakistan to declare war - just the US.

Or just tell him to shut his yap when hysteria beckons.

Regards,
Shodan

8

As far as I can tell, the checks and balances WRT declaration of war have never existed in the UK, given the Royal Prerogative that is ceded to the PM:

Further list of powers attributed to Burke’s Peerage.

9

Right on! I don’t believe that the framers originally intended that congress should give the president essentially unlimited power to haul the US into war on just his own assessment of a situation.

True the War Powers Act requires that if the executive determines that military action is needed, the president must report to congress within a certain time but that is pro forma and a dead issue after fighting starts.

Those who keep yelling “original intent” never seem to worry about it in this case.

10

Have to agree with Shodan here. The situations aren’t really analogous. If Congress felt the same way as Blair’s backbenchers they could stop the war in it’s tracks much, much more easily than their UK counterparts. But they don’t, at least not as strongly as their Labourite cousins across the lake. Of course, what Parliament would be doing if the Tories were in power instead of Labour might be a different story.

11

How do I view our checks and balances? Pretty well. I honestly don’t think that something all that drastic could be done by any one branch, without the approval of the others. As was mentioned above, if the President decides to, say, invade France, Congress can quickly strangle the flow of resources, mitigating the damage done. If Congress declared war on Fiji for no good reason, the President could just not order any troops over there.

In addition to that, politicians are never going to act terribly irrationally, because there’s the matter of keeping their jobs. The President attacking a nation with zero or very little public support would be political suicide. He certainly wouldn’t get re-elected, and he could very well be impeached. And as far as Congress is concerned, there’s the fact that you have to get some kind of consensus out of 535 people. The odds of getting a majority of those people in there with the same delusional ideas about invading some random country are right around zero.

So, bottom line, I think our checks of balances are pretty good, in both a formal sense, and a practical sense. It’s pretty much impossible to do something that everyone is dead-set against.
Jeff

12

Moderator’s Note: Edited thread title.

13

I suppose if you phrase it like this (No allies, No UN mandate and No WMD), you can find polls that say this. Most polls I’ve seen, though, generally support action against Iraq. Here’s one recent one that shows majority support before the State of the Union speech and even higher levels of support afterwards.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/29/opinion/polls/main538364.shtml

Also, I think the chances of all three of your conditions being met are essentially zero. At the very least, US action will have allies. Most scenarios I’ve read make it clear that a fair number of other nations will not only verbally support military action, but permit the US to use their bases, fly over their territory, or otherwise assist. So that’s one of your conditions that won’t etapply.

While I agree that another of your conditions (no further UN mandates) may be met, I’ll predict that we’re going see a Powell or Bush speech before any attack which reveals new intelligence relating to WMD or other prohibited arms that Iraq has been concealing from inspectors. That’ll solidify voter support even further.

14

Clearly, I do not. I said “weakened”, and that’s what I meant. Do *you * think it isn’t an abbrogation of responsibility for Congress to issue an open-ended invitation to the President to make war on Iraq or anywhere in “the region” he wants to, based on his independent assessment, to enforce not just specific UNSCR’s (only the ones he likes) but also the malleably-defined idea of “international peace and security”?

:rolleyes: (Note to Sen. Byrd: This is why it’s dangerous to assume any intelligence whatsoever on the part of your audience.) Y’see, honey, here’s why this US Senate resolution might be important to other countries: When one country establishes a broad self-serving policy in its relations with other countries, that policy, particularly if it is successfully implemented, is taken as precedent, and everybody who thinks they can pull it off follows suit.

You’re right. There is a silver lining to this.

15

London: Care to provide proof of Bush’s actual desire, as you assert, to have a war? Or are you quite content to throw charges around with no proof?

16

I disagree, Xeno. Congress can rescind that invitation at any time. They have just as much ability to stop any action as they did before. I don’t think there’s been much weakening.

17

Of course, he can provide no more proof of this than Bush can provide of Saddam’s desire to attack the West. Doesn’t stop the troop mobilizations, though.

18

London_Calling: you needed a bit more of a change to your thread title.

What “rush to war”? Bush gave his “axis of evil” speech a year ago. The topic has been heavily debated for at least 10 months. The US Congress gave authorization to Bush around 4 months ago, and the matter was first taken before the UN 3 months ago. Most wars have been fought and ended twice over in the amount of time that we have been “rushing” to war. Indeed, I can’t think of a possible war that has been more thoroughly assessed and debated than this one.

Sua

19

MEB – Thank you for editing the title !

Lib – You’re in the wrong damn thread :wink: Fwiw, lots of threads have skirted around the point you make and I do agree context is all, but too many select a timeframe to suit a conclusion they’ve already reached. In fact, I’ve seen some argue that 9/11 was effectively the starting point of all of this, which is rather like arguing that, until that moment, US foreign policy had zero impact overseas.

I presume this relates to my para one (re: Cabinet checks and balances):

I don’t read Blair’s position that way at all. He may not have to consult before committing but he damn well better or he won’t have a Cabinet – in other words, he may, in principle, be able to commit British ground forces but in doing so – given the present climate – he’ll also be committing political suicide.

Fwiw, we just don’t see that many resignations from Cabinet on *a point of principle * (usually it’s something more personal – I recall Heseltine walking out over Westland, have there been more recent examples, anyone ?) – resignations on principle become an informal internal opposition, authority seeps away……it becomes the most dreadful carry on……parliamentary party falls apart (witness John Major as PM and the anti-Euro crowd…very, very ugly internal divisions….). Blair cannot afford that under any circumstances, much less when public opinion is so strong….and Brown is waiting to pounch…….

In relation to Blair vis a vie his parliamentary party, I was tempted to go into an elaborate response but really I think the whole current parliamentary position is covered by, well, for want of a better phrase, ‘The Poll Tax Principle’ – Thatcher was out the door with indecent haste for setting her face so hard against public opinion: There is no way Blair’s backbenchers are going to lose their seats at the next election because of an unpopular (as you call it) principle.

And, of course, not to mention the Poll Tax riots, which, I suspect, would be repeated with uncommon enthusiasm and with central London again becoming the mother of all civil disobedience war zones……

……Which brings us to representing overwhelming public opinion and the exercise of the Royal Prerogative (role of the Queen). It’ll utterly unprecedented, if Blair tries to go against 80 + % of public opinion,. He wouldn’t do it….totally insane…… But……if he tried, Queenie’s constitutional role kicks in…and, as best I understand, if he doesn’t shape up, she kicks him out: Simply unacceptable to have a PM – without an express mandate – going against that level of public opinion.
Jjimm
<Ron Manager>

Gawd! Spitfires over the White Cliffs …… Vera Lynn…… duffle coats for goal posts…. !

</Ron Manager>

Fwiw, the Falklands wasn’t a ‘war’, nor was Gulf War 1… nor will this be. The last declaration of war, I believe, was by dear old dopey Neville on Sunday 3rd September 1939.
I’d love to monty, how would you like your proof; in a box with pretty pictures, maybe a graphic print in a lovely frame……? In other words, your terms (‘proof’) are not terribly helpful when considering political intent – the ‘proof’……….is in the pudding (the act), and not before. Are you a policeman, or summin’ ?

Xeno, I worry my understanding of the US checks and balances is itself under strain because of these unprecedented circumstances; actually, I guess we’re all pretty much in uncharted waters when it comes to ‘pre-emptive’ warfare.

Nonetheless, my simplistic understanding was similar to that you’ve indicated; that Congress had not merely given the president carte blanche on Iraq but, also, set a troubling precedent - I was rather hoping for something more encouraging from the better informed !

This by ** Neurotik**, however, might be encouraging. Is it ?

…has a constitutional base, yes ?

Ahh, on preview I see Sua has posted ……we may be here for a while yet……more later old chap, in a rush to work……

20

Well, we can put to rest the idea that the U.S. is planning on going in alone. The U.S. now has the explicit support of eight continental European countries, plus Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Israel, Australia, Britain, and a few others.

In fact, it’s looking more and more like France and Germany are the unilateralists here. The U.S. has been trying to make the case before the world. The U.S. has been working with the U.N. France and Germany just unilaterally told everyone to go to hell. And they’re in an ever-shrinking minority.

We can also put to rest the notion that the American people don’t support this war. They have for a long time. The only way you could spin it before to show that the American people didn’t support the war was if you presumed that the U.S. would go alone, without consulting the U.S., and without the approval of Congress. Bush has all three of those, and he’s had them for a while.

But support is growing daily. After the State of the Union speech, support for attacking Iraq has grown to the 70% range when asked without qualifiers (i.e. “Do you support the administration’s policy with Iraq?”, rather than leading questions like, 'Would you support a war even if no allies agreed with us and the U.N. Security Council vetoed it, and aliens came down and killed everyone on the battlefield, and thousands of cute puppies were killed?").

This was an overnight USA Today/Gallup poll. It showed that 67% of the public is now convinced of the case for war, even before Powell releases more evidence at the U.N.

Cite.

You’re going to have to face facts, anti-war guys. You’re in a small minority. The majority of the American people support Bush. The majority of democratic countries support Bush. And in the end, after the next week’s diplomatic blitzes, I predict you’re going to see widespread support in the U.N. (he’s already got 9 of 15 SC votes), and public support in the 80% range, which is far higher than in the first Gulf War.

In the end, I predict a security council vote that approves the war, with France and China abstaining. Either that, or Bush won’t go to the Security Council again because of a threatened French veto. And the American people will support that too.

You might as well also get used to Bush being very popular overall. EIGHTY FOUR PERCENT of people watching the SotU address had a ‘generally favorable’ impression of it. I predict that after the next popularity polls come out, you’re going to see even weaker support for Democrats, and Bush’s approval ratings back up in the mid-60’s. And once the war in Iraq starts, that approval rating is going to jump up into the 80’s again. You also might as well face the fact that Bush is a very popular president, and it’s not just about the war. People like him. Every time he gives a speech his popularity jumps.

You can still make a case against war on Iraq, but it has better not include claims of unilateralism or lack of support at home. Those two claims are demonstrably false.