Can Congress give military orders to the Commander in Chief?

By Mary Mostert

For the third time since becoming the majority in Congress in January 2007, the Democrats have attempted to order the commander in chief of the US Armed forces, George W. Bush, to bring the US military forces home from Iraq.

For months Congress has been debating whether or not that it a good idea or a bad idea. However, whether it is a good idea or a bad idea is beside the point. The real issue now is — where in the U.S. Constitution has the CONGRESS the authority to give commands the nation's Commander in Chief? Also, what section of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to ignore laws previously passed by Congress and signed by the president? Can a current Congress order a president to simply ignore any law it decides it doesn't like any more?

The Constitution gives to the Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" (Article I, Section 8) Once called into action, the commander in chief, not Congress, according to the Constitution, determines where the troops are sent and how they are to be used. Article II, Section 2 states: "The President shall be Commander in Chief 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;"

For almost 17 years Congress has been passing laws requiring the president to address the threat to world peace by the nation of Iraq. It was on September 28, 1990 that the 101st US Congress passed S. Con Res 147 () which approved "the leadership of the President" (George H. Bush) in successfully pursuing the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, and 670, which call for —

(1) the immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait;

(2) the restoration of Kuwait's sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity;

(3) the release and safe passage of foreign nationals held hostage by Iraq;

(4) the imposition of economic sanctions, including the cessation of airline transport, against Iraq; and

(5) the maintenance of international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.

Has peace and security in the Persian Gulf region been achieved? I don't think so.

On July 31, 1998, the US Senate unanimously passed Senate Joint Resolution 54. Three days later the House passed the same resolution by a vote of 407 to 6 which stated:

"Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security" and "That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."

Resolution 54 became PUBLIC LAW 105-235 on August 14, 1998 when it was signed by President Clinton.

In early October, 1998 the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, unanimously passed the House and Senate and on October 31, 1998 was signed by President Clinton to become Public Law 105-338. It states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

A week after terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center and tried to destroy the Pentagon, the House and the Senate both unanimously passed Public Law 107-40 which states:

"The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

That is current law. Note, it is federal LAW for the president to "prevent future acts of international terrorism against the United States" by going after those HE DETERMINES planned, authorized, committed, aided or harbored persons and organizations that aided any who were involved in the 911 attacks. That would seem to include those involved in ongoing terrorist attacks against the United States such as people killing American soldiers in Iraq.

It does not mention getting the approval after each congressional election of any new members or old members who want to surrender to the international terrorists.

Finally, on October 22, 2002 Congress passed Public Law 107-243 which authorized the President:

"to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to —
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

So, how come Congress is now trying to blame the president for "starting" a war that Congress basically has declared over a period of 17 years? Public Law 107-243 SPECIFICALLY requires the President, not the female Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Washington Post or the Gallup Poll to "determine the necessary and appropriate order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

If the president of the United States refused to enforce those laws, passed by previous congresses, it would be an impeachable offence. Instead, we have Ramsey Clark, Senator Sanders (VT-I) and Rep. Conyers leading the charge to impeach President Bush for having the nerve to ENFORCE the laws Congress has passed about Iraq.

Has NO ONE in the 110th Congress ever READ the bills the laws they voted for OR the U.S. Constitution?

© Mary Mostert