Congress
Can Overrule The President On Any Decision
By Rev. Bill McGinnis
17 December, 2006
Countercurrents.org
A
two-thirds vote in both houses overrides a Presidential veto, and the
President must then obey and implement whatever law Congress has passed,
on penalty of impeachment if he fails to do so.
There has been a lot of talk
going on lately about the "decisions" which President Bush
will make regarding his disastrous War in Iraq. Many people who should
know better are speaking as if the President somehow has the authority
-- all by himself -- to determine the Military and Foreign Relations
policies of the United States of America. On the Sunday talk shows,
people are anxiously awaiting to see which recommendations Bush will
"accept," as if his acceptance or rejection were all-important.
"After all," they seem to say, reverently: "he is the
Commander-In Chief! These decisions belong to him alone!"
Wrong! This belief is dangerous
nonsense, created by the Bush Administration and promoted by their obedient
Rubber-Stamp followers in the old Congress.
This false assertion has
been propped up by Bush's baseless claim of "Inherent Executive
Powers" to do whatever he personally wants to do as President,
regardless of what Congress may or may not instruct him to do. His Rubber-Stamp
followers in Congress have promoted this unconstitutional idea of an
all-powerful Commander-In-Chief; and in the process, they have in effect
surrendered the policy-making powers and responsibilities entrusted
to Congress by the Constitution. All patriotic Americans should be outraged
at this blatant Executive Power Grab, facilitated by Bush's servile
followers in Congress.
The truth is, the President
is not supposed to be the Great Decider, but the Capable Administrator,
who faithfully executes whatever laws are duly enacted by Congress.
"Congress makes the
laws. The President faithfully executes the laws. The Supreme Court
interprets the laws." This is how it is now, and always has been,
under our Constitution. And nothing about this changes in time of war.
Therefore, Congress has the
Constitutional authority to establish whatever policies it wants in
Iraq. If the President disagrees, he can veto the act passed by Congress.
But Congress has the final say, because it can override a Presidential
veto with a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. The act then
become law, regardless of the President's veto. And the President is
obligated to obey and implement that law, even it he disapproves of
it. If he fails to do so, Congress can impeach him and remove him from
office, for the high crime of deliberately refusing to execute a law
duly passed by Congress.
The Supreme Court ruled decisively on this exact subject in the early
days of our Country, when the Founders' intentions were fresh and clear
in people's minds. The case is named LITTLE v. BARREME, and you can
read it here:
LITTLE v. BARREME, 6 U.S.
170 (1804):
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/6/170.html
And this powerful and important
decision has been cited as precedent hundreds, if not thousands of times,
by the Supreme Court and other Federal Courts, even up to the present
day. Far from being some kind of irrelevant old decision, that may have
subsequently been overruled, it is as strong and important today as
it ever has been.
The question in this case
involved the President giving orders which contradicted an Act of Congress,
regarding a military action in a time of semi-declared war. And the
Supreme Court ruled that the President's actions were illegal, because
they violated an Act of Congress.
In the case "LITTLE
v. BARREME," The Supreme Court in 1804 ruled unanimously that a
part of President John Adams' instructions to seize ships was in conflict
with an act of Congress and therefore illegal. Congress had passed a
law instructing the President to seize certain ships going to France.
But the instructions issued to the Navy by President Adams changed that
to include certain ships that were either going to or coming from France.
A ship was seized coming from France. So the seizure followed the Presidential
order, but violated the Law passed by Congress, which only involved
ships going to France. On appeal, the case came before the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Marshall wrote,
"On an appeal to the circuit court this sentence was reversed,
because the Flying Fish was on a voyage from, not to, a French port,
and was therefore, had she even been an American vessel, not liable
to capture on the high seas."
And by writing this, Chief
Justice Marshall provides us today with the answer to a question which
was never even asked when the Founders wrote the Constitution, because
it was obvious to everybody then that Acts of Congress were more authoritative
than anything the President might want to do. Congress makes the laws,
the President faithfully executes them. And if he fails to do so, Congress
can remove him from office.
One scholar described the
case like this: "But Chief Justice Marshall wrote that even in
his capacity as commander in chief, the president could not authorize
a military officer to perform illegal acts. Only Congress can make laws,
Marshall argued, and regardless of the fact that the president may have
ordered his subordinate officer to perform an illegal act, that act
was still illegal, and the officer performing that act was responsible
for his behavior. Not even a military officer, Marshall wrote, could
use the 'instruction of the executive' as an excuse for performing an
illegal act."
Source: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59816596
The Justice Department has
mischaracterized the nature of the Little v. Barreme decision, when
it incorrectly said that the basis for this decision was that the President
had "gone beyond the terms of the statute," and thus had merely
over-reached his authority.
The exact words of the Justice
Department are, "The Supreme Court held that the orders given by
the President could not authorize a seizure beyond the terms of the
statute and therefore that the seizure of the ship not in fact bound
to a French port was unlawful. See 6 U.S. at 177-78"
Source: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/doj11906wp.pdf
This incorrect explanation
is based either on a misreading of the decision or deliberate willingness
to mislead the casual reader, because the decision itself clearly states
that the basis for the decision against the President was that he had
violated the statute, by ignoring a specific limitation on his authority,
not merely over-reached it, by "going beyond its terms."
Marshall wrote, "But
when it is observed that the general clause of the first section of
the 'act, which declares that such vessels may be seized, and may be
prosecuted in any district or circuit court, which shall be holden within
or for the district where the seizure shall be made,' obviously contemplates
a seizure within the United States; and that the fifth section gives
a special authority to seize on the high seas, and limits that authority
to the seizure of vessels bound or sailing to a French port, the legislature
seem to have prescribed [6 U.S. 170, 178] that the manner in which this
law shall be carried into execution, was to exclude a seizure of any
vessel not bound to a French port."
Thus we see that that basis
of deciding LITTLE v. BARREME was that the President had ignored a specific
limitation on his authority, not that he had merely over-reached it.
These observations lead us
to this obvious conclusion: In the absence of a Congressional limitation,
the Executive may exercise reasonable use of his Inherent Powers as
head of the Executive Branch and Commander-in-Chief of the Military.
But Congress may impose upon the President whatever limitations it may
choose, under its Inherent Powers to enact all Federal laws.
Legislative power always
supersedes Executive power. The tail must not wag the dog. If you doubt
this, please re-read the Constitution at http://www.loveallpeople.org/usconstitutiona.txt
Blessings to you. May God
help us all. And may God bless America!
William McGinnis (Rev. Bill McGinnis)
1908 Mt Vernon Ave #2543
Alexandria, VA 22301
7037686710
[email protected]
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights