Is the United States Constitution an "Invitation to Struggle?"

The Constitution, according to Edwin Corwin, is an "invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy." (Treverton, 1992). The struggle that is central to the US Constitution is the relationship between Congress and the President. While the Constitution speaks directly to other separations and balances of powers, it offers little to guide the interactions between the executive and the legislature. These two institutions were created in such a way that they share certain powers, thus an "invitation" to struggle was deliberately built-in by the Founders who drafted the Constitution.

In order to fully understand what the Founders were trying to achieve, it is important to recall the circumstances surrounding the drafting of the Constitution. The framers were a group of revolutionaries who detested kings. One of their primary concerns as they framed the United States Constitution was that they not accidentally allow for a kingdom. In order to guard closely against placing excessive amounts of power with the executive, the Founders sharply and intentionally limited presidential powers.

The framers of the Constitution were particularly wary of giving the United States' president too much power over matters of war. They were troubled by Europe's history of conflicts started by high and mighty kings. (Cohen, 2007). When the Constitution was drafted, their skepticism could be felt in the text. In Britain, kings had the power to declare war and raise and support armies. As an expression of their absolute rejection of this model, the framers reserved these powers for Congress rather than the president. (Cohen, 2007). As James Madison once observed, "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department... [T]he temptation would be too great for any one man." (Edwards & Skaggs, 2008).

The Constitution also sharply limits the presidential power to enter into war by handing Congress control of the purse. According to James Madison, Congressional control over war spending is "the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."

Former senator Lee Hamilton offers a concise and sound overview of the current, real-world implications of this "invitation to struggle" between Congress and the executive. "Foreign policy has changed from being the domain of a select few to being an activity involving many thousands of Americans and innumerable policy makers." (Hamilton, 2002, pg. 40). What this leads to, in his view, is an increased difficulty in reaching a consensus on foreign policy, as there now so many players involved. Hamilton feels that consultation is the best remedy for this problem.

Hamilton also reminds us throughout the book of the need for tension between Congress and the President. While the President is not obligated to abide by the points raised by Congress, he should absolutely feel compelled to hear them. He points out that Congress does not exist to offer "unvarnished criticism," as members of Congress do not serve at the pleasure of the president. (Hamilton, 2002, pg. 73).

Thus, the "invitation" is a well-thought-out and quite deliberate mechanism created by the founding fathers to mandate consultation between the executive and the legislature before war can be entered in to. Such a division in powers ensures that wars are not entered into easily, and ensures that Congress cannot divest the power to make war to the president. Therefore, when Congress attempts to curtail a war by way of limiting funding, this is precisely what the founders had in mind.

REFERENCES:

Cohen, Adam. "Just What the Founding Fathers Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War." The New York Times, July 23, 2007. Retrieved January 10, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23mon4.html.

Edwards, Mickey and David Skaggs. "Sending the U.S. to War is not the President's Call." The Christian Science Monitor, August 20, 2008. Retrieved January 10, 2010 from http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0820/p09s02-coop.html.

Fisher, Louis, Ryan Hendrickson and Stephen R. Weissman. "Congress at War." Foreign Affairs, May/June, 2008. Retrieved January 10, 2010 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64297/louis-fisher-ryan-hendrickson-and-stephen-r-weissman/congress-at-war.

Hamilton, Lee H. and Jordan Tama. "A Creative Tension: The Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress."
Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center Press, 2002.

Treverton, Gregory F. Rev. "Making War: The 200-Year-Old Battle Between President and Congress Over the Way America Goes to War." Foreign Affairs, Summer 1992. Retrieved January 10, 2010 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/47796/gregory-f-treverton/making-war-the-200-year-old-battle-between-president-and-congres.