Abraham Lincoln: The Powers of the President to Invade
To WILLIAM H. HERNDON, Esq. February 15, 1848.— LETTER TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. WASHINGTON, February 15, 1848.
Dear William :
Your letter of the 29th January was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.
Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are— first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced ; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him Î You may say to him, " I see no probability of the British invading us "; but he will say to you, " Be silent: I see it, if you don't."
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.
Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. (as a Congressman)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Abraham Lincoln | Constitution | invasion | Presidency
Interesting that you think so
Submitted by mole333 on 10 October 2007 - 1:22pm.
The letter was sent to me by a friend who is a historian who thought it quite appropriate. I think his point being that Congress ceded the power to declare war to Bush, thus giving him the power normally reserved for kings. Your point is that Congress ceding that power follows the Constitutional procedure, I guess, which I can see. My friend's point would be that Congress made a move that, whether or not Constitutional, circumvented the Constitutionally outlined procedure creating a dangerous situation for our democracy.
Continuing the debate
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 10 October 2007 - 3:02pm.
In the old days, the President would ask Congress for a declaration of war, which they generally granted.
After the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, in which Congress never formally declared war, thw "War Powers Act" was passed in 1973. The original intent of the Act was to limit the President's authority to wage war without Congressional approval. Sections 4(c) and 5(b) are particularly significant, to wit:
4(c): Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.
5(b): Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
In other words, Bush has to report to Congress regarding our occupation of Iraq at least every six months, and Congress must authorize our continued occupation of Iraq every time.
If this is being done, then as I said before, Congress has not abdicated their responsibility regarding declaring war, but rather abdicated their responsibilty to be responsible. If this is not being done, then someone needs to be severely punished. Specifically, Congressional leaders who have failed and/or are failing to do their jobs in this respect are guilty of allowing thousands of Americans to be killed, and should be held criminally liable.
Either way, Bush/Cheney must be ousted, not only for causing the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans, but also for allowing torture, imprisoning American citizens in violation of their Constitutional rights, and generally for being a couple of evil bastards (not exactly a legal argument, but it's my favorite).
Still, the Lincoln letter doesn't really apply.
Unfortunately...
This letter, while fascinating (especially considering that Lincoln and Herndon were law partners at the time), it bears no relevance to the current situation.
Congress gave Bush approval to invade and occupy Iraq. Recently, in the Kyl/Lieberman amendment, the Senate gave Bush de facto permission to invade and occupy Iran. While Lincoln's claim that the President cannot invade another country on his own is perfectly valid, it simply doesn't apply to today's situation.