In all other respects, however, Article II of the U.S. Constitution
gives the President of the United States exceedingly limited powers
domestically, as compared to the Congress. Section 2 of Article II
grants authority to appoint judges and other "officers of the United
States" subject the advice and consent of the Senate. Section 3 provides
that the President may also propose laws, convene both houses of
Congress on "extraordinary occasions" and adjourn the Congress when the
two houses disagree about the time of adjournment. Hence, contrary to
the prevailing right-wing stereotypes about an aggrandizing executive,
presidential power in domestic affairs basically remains, as Richard
Neustadt described it in his 1960 classic work, Presidential Power, "the power to persuade."
In contrast to the President's limited domestic authority, Article II
of the Constitution confers broad powers upon the President in the realm
of foreign affairs. Section 2 of that article vests authority in the
President as commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States and the Militias (today's National Guard) of the States when
called into service. The President is also given the authority, with the
advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, and to appoint
ambassadors.
Since the adoption of the Constitution, by
virtue of the President's authority over diplomacy and the armed forces,
and the surrender by the Congress of its authority to declare war, the
President's control over the foreign policy of the United States, and
the ability to commit U.S. forces to foreign adventures and combat
abroad, has grown exponentially. The Cold War accelerated that trend.
Interestingly also, in stark contrast to the unrestrained zeal of
current federal court judges to set aside domestic laws and regulations,
the judiciary of the United States continues to give broad and
virtually uncritical deference to the president's authority in foreign
policy.
The President's limited ability to address urgent
domestic needs, and the inability of the office to surmount the kind of
Constitutional gridlock and dysfunction that are caused by checks and
balances and separation of powers (which weakness is magnified when
confronted by an intransigent Congress) forces office-holders to look
elsewhere to secure their legacy. Hence, the temptation of modern
Presidents, whether Democrats or Republicans, to become embroiled in the
kinds of foreign entanglements that George Washington warned against
becomes almost impossible to resist.
This temptation to meddle abroad becomes even stronger, given
the blandishments of the media, fueled as they are by inside the
beltway, Neo-Cons, Washington think-tanks and the enormous lobbying power
of those entities that depend for their continued prosperity upon the
care and feeding of the garrison/surveillance state.
Here at home, President Obama needs to remember that the drums of war
are being banged most loudly in the Congress by those who revel in his
failures. Senators McCain and Graham have yet to meet a war or a foreign
adventure that they could not endorse. A perplexing question rarely
asked of them by pundits, is why they oppose almost all presidential
policies that would promote the public interest and address the myriad
of domestic problems this country faces - such as poverty, lack of
medical insurance, decaying infrastructure, policies that deny employees
the right to unionize, economic inequality, and a stagnant economy -
yet demand that the president squander billions of dollars of the
taxpayer's money in a vain effort to try to influence events that do
virtually nothing to address this country basic needs?
When
all is said and done, as Joseph Stiglitz and other economists have
estimated, Iraq and Afghanistan may very well cost the U.S. in excess of
six trillion dollars. That amount of money would be more than enough
to address every pressing domestic need in the United States and
provide guaranteed medical care for every single American.
If the lessons of this country's recent misadventures provide any
guidance, President Obama would do well to think long and carefully and
resist the siren calls of the French and British. It is their
discredited colonial policies that continue to be the cause of most of
the discord in the world, whether in India/Pakistan, the Middle East, or
in Africa.
Secretary of Defense Hagel and General Dempsey
have warned that the U.S. has limited abilities and options. One
country, no matter how technologically powerful but far removed from the
turmoil of civil strife and sectarian hatred that has been stoked by
religious zealots and fanatics and repressive governments, cannot
control the destiny of cultures that are imploding. As our own Civil War
showed, some conflicts - especially where important principles such as a
history of social injustices are implicated - can never be resolved
through diplomacy or by the threat of foreign intervention. Sadly, for
ill or for better, events in Egypt and Syria - as well as other trouble
sports in the Middle East - will play out on the field of history until
one party or the other has emerged the victor.
