While the president is the commander of the armed forces, the question for this Congress becomes, â??What powers do we have to oversee the presidentâ??s command?â?

Presidential assertions of military power have been made since the founding of our Constitution. Even George Washington himself asserted power by ending the Whiskey Rebellion with the then-young American military.

But when the president oversteps his reach, it has not been uncommon for Congress to limit his powers to some extent. For instance, during the fall of the Nixon presidency, Congress reasserted its position in war policy by issuing the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which required Congressional approval for outstanding military conflicts lasting longer than 60 days.

It is with this precedent in mind that the 110th Congress can make assertions of its own powers. While the president is the commander of the armed forces, the question for this Congress becomes, “What powers do we have to oversee the president“s command?”

President Bush has often asserted during the Iraq War that he is “the decider.” Several prominent senators, however, have questioned the legality of his claim, as well as the Constitutional powers they have to attack said claim.

The debate has begun during a critical juncture in the War in Iraq, just as Bush has begun what his administration has called an “augmentation” in troop numbers within the war. About 20,000 additional troops will be added to specific regions in Iraq to help the Iraqis cope with growing sectarian violence being waged between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

The questioning of Bush“s assertion has not, however, come solely from the Democratic majority in Congress. Several prominent Republican senators, such as Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, have also been skeptical when it comes to the president“s claim that he is the sole decider on matters of war.

This dialogue is long overdue. We have, for a long time now, needed these voices of dissent that not only question the president“s authority but furthermore give the American people a powerful voice in our government.

According to a CBS News poll, two out of every three Americans disapprove of sending more troops into Iraq; 72 percent of respondents believed that Bush should receive Congressional approval before doing so.

And yet the president chooses to ignore the voices of the American people.

Tens of thousands of Americans protested the proposed surge in troops in Iraq last weekend, gathering on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., to voice concerns of rising violence in a war that seems to have no end.

When asked about the protest in Washington last weekend, Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, said that the president took very little notice to the events just beyond his fenced home.

“I don't think he really thought a lot about it,” Snow said. He added, “It's nice to see Jane Fonda in front of the camera again.”

The people are demanding, in growing numbers, that this war come to an end in the near future. President Bush chooses to ignore the voice of the people. However, Congress is hearing us loud and clear.

The will of the people will not be ignored. And the will of the people will be carried out, if Congress has its way. You are the deciders, not the president. And if you decide to end this war, then Congress will see to it that it will end in the near future.

> Comments