happiness Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 On the one hand, we should all want our politicians to strictly uphold the Constitution. On the other hand, what if military action were required to protect Americans agaisnt a lethal threat from abroad, but a bunch of hippie pacifitst in Congress refused to delcare war to neutralize that threat? Would the President be justified in breaching the Constitution in such a scenario? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) On the one hand, we should all want our politicians to strictly uphold the Constitution. On the other hand, what if military action were required to protect Americans agaisnt a lethal threat from abroad, but a bunch of hippie pacifitst in Congress refused to delcare war to neutralize that threat? Would the President be justified in breaching the Constitution in such a scenario? Why does this only apply to war? What if a bunch of hippie pacifists in Congress refused to make abortion illegal or to ban gay marriage? Shouldn't the president be allowed to do what's right, not what some crusty old documents or stupid voters say. Edited January 31, 2012 by DavidV grammar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalistSwine Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Why does this only apply to war? What if a bunch of hippie pacifists in Congress or refused to make abortion illegal or to ban gay marriage? Shouldn't the president be allowed to do what's right, not what some crusty old documents or stupid voters say. I agree with you on the philosophical level, but once we come into reality this is not so simple. This assumes that the President holds Objectivist views of what is right, and an Objectivist President would also likely suggest that a large portion of the population was at least sympathetic to Objectivist views. We are far from the latter and even farther from the former. Many Presidents have though things, massive genocide among them, to be right (or necessary) that were downright dictatorial. This is why those crusty old documents exist in the first place, i.e. to bar abuses of power. " what if military action were required to protect Americans agaisnt a lethal threat from abroad, but a bunch of hippie pacifitst in Congress refused to delcare war to neutralize that threat? " As far as the OP's comments on a pacifist Congress, I do not deem this terribly likely, but would be more willing to entertain the idea of an example from history was given, I am not aware of one. The only time the President should be able to go over the heads of proper procedure in the declaration of war (a very serious matter) would be if the United States was under thread of imminent attack and no time could be spared (as in, for instance a few days or a week time where we know for a fact the supposed enemy would be incapable of launching an attack, but were aware it was coming in which case an emergency session could be had). I do not see why any Congress, if there truly was credible evidence or reasoning to believe of a threat to national security that would require pre-emptive action, that you would have any issue getting the necessary majority votes for the declaration. If nothing else, self-preservation and personal safety always win out over ideological pacifism with all but the borderline insane, in which case I would ask why they are seated in Congress to begin with, rather than an asylum. Edited January 31, 2012 by CapitalistSwine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 On the one hand, we should all want our politicians to strictly uphold the Constitution. On the other hand, what if military action were required to protect Americans agaisnt a lethal threat from abroad, but a bunch of hippie pacifitst in Congress refused to delcare war to neutralize that threat? Would the President be justified in breaching the Constitution in such a scenario? Do you have any arguments supporting your hypothesis that this is something that could actually happen? If not, the correct answer is: your question is irrelevant. But, in the case of political systems where your scenario is a possibility (political systems other than the US, where I don't think it is), then such political system is not valuable enough to risk the destruction of the country just to keep it. So the answer would be yes, the President should act to stop the threat. But again, this does not apply to the US President, who would never face that choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I agree with you on the philosophical level, but once we come into reality this is not so simple.I suspect DavidV's question was rhetorical. In other words, he was implying that the President ought not to go to war without Congressional approval. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.