Good Thursday morning Fellow Seekers,
The mainstream accounts of the failure of Sen. Jim Webb’s amendment all emphasize that it fell four votes short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. But if the goal is really to change administration policy in Iraq, this threshold is greatly overrated, because President Bush would have vetoed the bill, and the Democrats have nowhere near the two-thirds majority in either house needed to override a veto.
(The Webb amendment would have required more time at home for troops between tours to a war zone. It was often stated that this would have been a back-door means of forcing a decline in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.)
Secretary of Defense Gates said that he would recommend a veto. In his national address last Thursday, Bush issued a not-very-veiled veto threat:
“In all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.”
I wrote Monday that the U.S. Constitution creates a chief executive more powerful than exists in most democracies. In the comment thread, Craig Westover cogently disputed the point, and argued that much of what passes for presidential power is not really rooted in the Constitution. Good point. But not on this point.
The requirement of 60 votes to break a Senate filibuster is not in the Constitution. But the requirement of two-thirds of both houses to override a veto is.
The best the Democrats could have hoped to get out of the Webb Amendment would be to force Bush to veto it. That would have been a further demonstration of the war’s unpopularity; followed a further demonstration that the war’s opponents do not have veto-proof majoritie. It would have done nothing to hasten the withdrawal of any U.S. troops from Iraq.
Eric is right about presidential veto power and its roots in the Constitution. He is also right that the crucial number is 67, not 64. I will even concede his language that the U.S. Constitution “creates a chief executive more powerful than exists in most democracies.” But I also think Eric is making distinctions without a difference.
Of the Webb vote, because GWB would have vetoed it and the veto would have been sustained, Eric writes, “It would have done nothing to hasten the withdrawal of any U.S. troops from Iraq.”
I think that is a very narrow view. Every step Congress takes in opposition to the war has an effect on popular opinion. Would passing the Webb amendment only to have it vetoed and the veto sustained had its desired effect? No, but it would have had some effect. Does anyone not believe that increasing unpopularity of the war in Iraq and congressional resistance has not tempered Bush’s military ambitions?
My point is, and it applies regardless of one’s position on the war, presidential power is more dependent on the personal influence of the president than it is on stated constitutional powers. The problem of presidential power has less to do with Constitutionally defined powers than it has to do with the enormous power of the executive branch that has been ceded to it by congress – over many administrations – and is now entrenched in a bureaucracy where career civil servants have more seniority and influence than the elected representatives of the people, and they obliged to political appointees for their marching orders.
It is not the Constitution that deserves scrutiny, but the history of congressional giveaways to the executive branch.
That said, congress still holds the power of the purse, and if congress wanted to curtail the war it could, but at the risk of being charged with abandoning the troops. Therein lies the rub. The question thus becomes not one of presidential power, but of just how badly congress wants to end the war.
Thanks, Craig, for your always stimulating comments. In normal times, I might agree with you that “presidential power is more dependent on the personal influence of the president than it is on stated constitutional powers.”
But this president is pushing the envelope on that one. If Pres. Bush’s ability to continue his current course in Iraq depended on popular support, or the views of the majority in Congress (as it would in a parliamentary system) the course would have long since changed, with or without Bush. But at this point, the constitutional arrangement that enables him to block a law with the support of one-third of one house, is much more relevant than usual.
Eric –
Perhaps we have reached the point of “agreeing to disagree,” but methinks that your position is rooted in your opposition to the war rather than the general issue of presidential power. (Otherwise why distinguish between “normal” and whatever we have now and between “relevant” and “more relevant”?)
As a point of reference, FDR used his veto power 372 times plus “pocket veto” power (simply not signing a bill in the prescribed time limit) 263 times (635 total) – he was overridden only 9 times. And Bush is no FDR in terms of presidential strength. In other words, 624 times FDRblocked a law with “the support of one-third of one house.” I would call some of these vetoes “most relevant.”
I admit to being a little nervous about your earlier comments questioning the Electoral College and now your comparison to a parliamentary system. Liberte. Egalite. Fraternate. For the record, Citizen, I am giving up cake and taking up knitting. :-)
The problem highlighted with the Webb Amendment is just how hopelessly antiquated and obsolete our Constitution is in terms of advancing any twentieth century conception of representative democracy. In a real representative democracy, impeachment of Bush would never have been declared “off the table” as it was by Speaker of the House Pelosi nor would there be this concern about passing a veto proof bill setting a date for cutting off funding for the Iraq War. I agree with Craig Westover. It makes no difference if the President vetoes these bills. Every bill or resolution adopted by Congress has an effect. If nothing else it records the dwindling public support for this War. As it is, the Iraq war is also becoming the Democrats’ war and they will soon become as responsible for its continuation just as Nixon and Kissiner were for the continuation of the Vietnam War.
The inability of Congress or rather refusal of Congress to even try curbing the assertion of dictatorial powers by the current president shows how little Congress has come to mean in terms of representing the people of this country. At best, we have become the opposite of what Louis Brandeis, Jr., described America, a “country of ballots not dollars.” The most charitable thing one can say about government in American is today is that it is a plutocracy- government by and for the wealthy.
Congress is a millionaire’s club or a club for the proxies of millionaires. It is more concerned about the brain dead opinions of the beltway chattering class than the people living here. How else can one explain the votes and the support Bush has among supposedly “liberal” Democratic Senators (like Dianne Feinstein of California)and I’m sorry to say our own Amy Klobuchar. Sure, they make the right noises when they visit their states but what they really believe is reflected in the feckless actions of this Congress.