Year after years, the American people and presidential historians rank Abraham Lincoln as the greatest president in U.S. history. Presidents Ford, Carter, H.W. Bush, Clinton and W. Bush have all said that President Lincoln was the leader who inspired them during their most trying days in office. Former President Trump incredulously liked to say that he had done more for the Black community than anyone except Abraham Lincoln.
The admiration for President Lincoln is well founded. He was committed to preserving the Union regardless of the consequences to himself. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which declared all slaves within the Confederacy forever free. Against the backdrop of the Civil War, Lincoln won reelection and was generous in encouraging Confederates to lay down their arms and rejoin the union. Tragically, on April 14, 1865, Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth who thought he was furthering the cause of the South. Booth was wrong, and President Lincoln’s canonization began almost immediately.
Throughout his public life, Lincoln expressed reverence and respect for the Constitution. As a Congressman, he warned against those who might tamper with the charter that affirms the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. “Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties,” Lincoln declared in a speech on August 27, 1856.
While serving as president, Lincoln faced a litany of constitutional issues brought on by the Civil War. The president pushed the boundaries on limiting state sovereignty, expanding presidential power and hampering civil liberties in the name of national security. Just as the Constitution gave no state the right to secede from the union, the Constitution gave no guidance to the president on how to deal with seceders.
President Lincoln was well aware that his signing of the Emancipation Proclamation might be viewed as unconstitutional. To help quell those concerns and explain why he was permitted as president to free slaves in the Confederacy, Lincoln cited his power as Commander-in-Chief in the Emancipation Proclamation.
“Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief...in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion,” proclaim all persons held as slaves within states engaged in rebellion against the Union “forever free.”
Still concerned that his wartime proclamation might be nullified by the courts, President Lincoln called on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that would end slavery throughout America. With the backing of President Lincoln, the Republican Party endorsed the Thirteenth Amendment and it was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864 and the House on January 31, 1865. Eight months after President Lincoln was assassinated, on December 6, 1865, the necessary number of states ratified the Thirteenth Amendment and slavery was abolished in the United States.
In the same manner in which American politicians from both sides of the aisle have great admiration for President Lincoln, they too express adoration for the Constitution. However, for over 60 years, America’s presidents and congressional representatives have repeatedly worked around the Constitution to launch military offenses across the globe.
The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution reads, “The Congress shall have Power… To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” Since the founding of America, Congress has only declared war on 11 occasions. The last declaration of war was approved in 1942 during World War II.
Despite Congress last declaring war almost 8 decades ago, America has been engaged in many military conflicts since. These successive conflicts have usually been permitted by resolutions authorizing the use of military force. However, Democrat and Republican presidents have also routinely engaged in military operations without congressional consent. Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Obama and Trump all initiated military operations without congressional approval under the auspice of their power as commander-in-chief.
Even when Congress passes an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), what is approved by Congress and what the president directs the military to do and what the military does, can be worlds apart. Following the deadliest terrorist attacks in U.S. history on September 11, 2001, Congress passed an Authorization for Use of Military Force. Signed into law by President Bush on September 18, 2001, the AUMF authorized the president “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 Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” While it is important to consider the context in which this AUMF was written, approved and signed, we must scrutinize why Congress approved such a broad authorization for use of force.
Who is deciding what nations, organizations, or persons were behind the 9/11 attacks? Why did the authorization have to be so broad? Couldn’t President Bush go back to Congress with intelligence if he needed to expand the authorization from say Al-Qaeda to the entire nation of Afghanistan?
In October of 2002, Congress passed a second AUMF giving the president authority to “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.”
As we now know, this second AUMF was approved by Congress only after they had been lied to by President Bush and his allies about the threat posed by Iraq and its president, Saddam Hussein. A 2008 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that President Bush and his advisers made statements that U.S. intelligence agencies knew to be false about Hussein’s nonexistent links to al-Qaeda and the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In short, the Bush Administration engaged in a massive public campaign after 9/11 to use the war against al-Qaeda as justification for toppling Saddam Hussein.
Under the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, America has deployed troops to at least 19 countries including: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Kenya, Niger, Cameroon, Uganda, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Cuba, and Kosovo. It stretches all credulity to believe that when Congress authorized these AUMFs, they expected America’s military to be deployed across the globe - not to mention the cost involved in sending our troops to fight in all of these places.
Some in Congress have been sounding the alarm that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are way too broad and undefined. These calls were partially answered on June 17, 2021, when the House voted 268-161 to repeal the AUMF against Iraq from 2002. Unlike the Trump and Obama Administrations, the Biden White House supports the repeal of the 2002 AUMF and Majority Leader Schumer (D-NY) has said he will hold a vote on the authorization’s repeal in the Senate.
Incredulously, despite the best efforts of Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) and her allies, a vote has not been held to repeal the 2001 AUMF, which continues to be used to justify military action against terrorists around the globe.
Two generations ago, Congress seems to recognize their ability to control matters of war, as prescribed by the Constitution, was slipping from their grip. In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973 to limit a president’s capacity to send troops into combat without Congressional approval. The act allows the president to send troops into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, but requires the president to notify Congress of the action within 48 hours. In addition, the act requires Congress to approve the dispatch of troops should they remain deployed for more than 60 days and forces the withdrawal of troops within 90 days, if Congress does not authorize their use. The act was passed by a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate, overriding a veto by President Nixon.
Despite the passage of the War Powers Act, the vague and seemingly all encompassing 2001 and 2002 AUMFs show that, in recent years, congress has been derelict in its duty with respect to launching military conflicts. The framers of the Constitution were intentional and revolutionary in their decision to give congress, and congress alone, the power to declare war. Unlike all prior history, where monarchs and religious leaders chose when to engage in combat, the framers placed this great power in the hands of many. If America was going to survive and thrive as a republic, the framers believed declarations of war had to be carefully debated by the public’s representatives.
It is understandable and wise that the president has the authority to respond immediately with military might should the United States be attacked. However, the decision by congress to approve the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs was irresponsible because they were not specifically tailored to the threat America was facing. Instead of doing the hard work of figuring out what authorization was necessary, based on the threats America faced, congress simply gave the president a blank check to engage in war almost anywhere. This decision has not only cost the American people over $6 trillion, but has resulted in the death of over 7,000 Americans. Perhaps if congress had approached this crucial aspect of their job with more solemnity, this horrific death toll and financial armageddon could have been avoided.
By refusing to declare war when necessary, or at least pass narrowly tailored AUMFs, congress is absolving themselves from making the toughest decisions. When a military conflict becomes unpopular, congress can blame the president or the military because they can credibly say they did not authorize it. This dereliction of duty is the antithesis of everything that America stands for. In America, the people’s representatives are supposed to make the tough calls about war and peace so that the American people can hold them accountable. It is far past time that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are repealed so that America can move beyond our longest war. The next time the U.S. engages in a foreign conflict, Americans must demand that congress votes to go to war or passes a precise, unambiguous AUMF with a clear deadline.
Comments