As usual, a discussion about the Constitution and war has ensued in light of events in Libya. Specifically, the role of the President as commander-in-chief in military matters versus Congress.
Excerpt from the University of Missouri-Kansas City:
"The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important--in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress."
Since Canada also has sent fighter planes to participate in this adventure, what can you tell us about why Canada is in this? Are there protests? Is there a legal precedent for involvement in this? Are the Canadians just going along because NATO is in this? Had the U.S. declined to get involved would Canada have been emboldened to decline as well?
ReplyDeleteAll very good questions and was planning a post on this. Stay tuned.
ReplyDeleteForget it. I'll do it here.
ReplyDelete-As to protests. Canada doesn't do protests. We bitch from afar. The only thing is they will claim Harper is a puppet of the United States. That he may share neoconsertative values doesn't equate to falling before American power. After all, he's participating in alliance with the Obama administration.
The puppet assertion has no teeth.
-Why we go. The conservative party are more clearminded in how they want to project their outlook than the previous liberal party was. The Liberals under Chretien were far more stoic, if not cynical in their approach to foreign policy. To me anyway. I know Harper gets grief for his FP, but the liberals were far from noble in their dithering.
-Precedence. Canada does not have the same spiritual, cultural and legal attachment to their Charter as Americans do to their constitution. Two different cats altogether. The bottom line is the Prime Minister has more power than the President in that he doesn't need Parliament's consent to declare war or intervene internationally.
-Canada does prefer to work within international organizations and are very sensitive in not looking like their American lap dogs.
- The last question is tougher and cuts right to the heart of American-Canadian relations. I guess it depends on the situation. I think the Liberals were gutsy in not going in Iraq. While it turned out to be a good move, it did come with some consequences in our relations to the U.S. and role in international affairs - justified or not.
I have to think about this one more.
I just spit these out.