Hume cherry-picked Constitution to attack Murtha's view of congressional role in war debate
On the April 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume selectively cited the U.S. Constitution to suggest that, in an April 24 CNN interview, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) incorrectly stated that Congress has a role in determining the future of U.S. Iraq policy.
Hume observed that "a paragraph of the United States Constitution that makes no mention of Congress" -- Article II, Section 2, paragraph 1 -- states that "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." Hume then reported Murtha's CNN comment that overseeing Iraq policy is Congress' "job." But Hume ignored another section of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, which requires congressional approval before the federal government may spend money on military operations or anything else. During his CNN interview, Murtha was discussing President Bush's criticism of the Iraq war supplemental funding bill, which will require that the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq begin no later than October 1, 2007, if, by July 1, the president certifies that benchmarks established in the bill are being met.
Another section of the Constitution also makes clear that the president and Congress share authority over the U.S. armed forces. Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress authority to "raise and support Armies," "make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," and "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
From the April 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: In a paragraph of the United States Constitution that makes no mention of Congress, the Founding Fathers decreed that "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." In a CNN interview today, Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman and leading war critic John Murtha was asked about complaints from President Bush that Congress was trying to micromanage the war in Iraq. Murtha's response, quote: "That's our job."
The Republican take from Florida Congressman Adam Putnam, quote: "We strongly disagree. It is never appropriate for politicians in the gilded committee rooms of Washington to be dictating targets and tactics on the ground," end quote.
From the April 24 edition of CNN's American Morning:
JOHN ROBERTS (co-anchor): The war of words over the war in Iraq is growing louder this week. Congress could begin voting tomorrow on the $124 billion war spending bill, which orders a phased pullout of U.S. troops. All of it sets up a bitter showdown with President Bush.
BUSH [video clip]: I will strongly reject a artificial timetable withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job.
[...]
ROBERTS: You heard what President Bush said, that Congress shouldn't be micromanaging the war. What do you say?
MURTHA: That's our job, John. We have accountability. For six years, they had no accountability in the White House. Matter of fact, there's 126,000 contractors in Iraq. We've appropriated $1.2 trillion over a one-year period. It's time that this White House start to listen to people. People [have] been way ahead. People of Iraq want us out. People in the United States want us out. It's time for him to get a redeployment plan. If he doesn't do that, we're going to have the disaster he predicts just like we did when we went into Iraq.
yep, that siily, quaint 'piece of paper' Brit and the neo-cons hate so much
Give me a break! Liberals are the ones that keep modifying the Constitution as they see fit - be it the attempted gutting of the 2nd Amendment or the introduction of a "right to privacy" by Justice Brennan (through Blackmum).
Now hold on there. If you were to talk to my brother, the 16th amendment was not legally ratified by Congress (which was republican controlled at the time!)
The article Tax protester constitutional arguments covers this topic in considerably more detail, including details on the specific arguments made against ratification.
"Some tax protesters, conspiracy investigators, and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never "properly ratified." One such argument is that because the legislatures of various states passed resolutions of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas) from the text proposed by Congress, those states' ratifications were invalid. A related argument is that various states illegally violated procedural requirements of their constitutions when passing their ratification resolutions. Another argument made by some tax protesters regards Ohio, one of the states listed as ratifying the amendment. They contend that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio's date of admission (1803) to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 (and, therefore, could not have ratified the Sixteenth Amendment). (courtesy of wikipedia)"
Same thing regarding the 14th amendment - done during republican control.
"A number of individuals argue that the ratification of the 14th Amendment violated Article V of the Constitution. For instance, Bruce Ackerman argues that:
In 1968, the Utah Supreme Court diverged from the habeas corpus issue in a case to express its resentment against recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment, and to attack the Amendment itself:
A resolution passed by the Georgia legislature, the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress, disputes the validity of ratification of the Amendment."
So the truth here is there are several ways used by both parties to make legal changes, but I only see one party trying to shut down legal avenues used to do so.
Appreciate the detailed response. However, I disagree with you that the Right is more guilty than the Left when it comes to changing the Constitution - illegally or otherwise. After all, the "living Constitution" is a creature of liberal creation, isn't it?
I did not say the right is more guilty than the left of making changes. I did say the right is doing more to shut down avenues of change. That is the real argument to be had - after all, the 11th and 12th amendments would not have been passed if it had not been for intervention by the supreme court. This is where the precedent was set to say the courts can also interpret the constitution.
Point taken re: your clarification. IMO, the Left is much more guilty of introducing illegal and surreptitious changes. Some examples - the intro of the income tax, social security, and FDR's/Johnson's excesses. The Right was powerless when it came to shutting down these Leftist changes - though they were certainly not mandated by the Constitution. Which is why I don't understand the assertion that the Right is somehow shutting down avenues.
Again, whoa horsey. The 16th amendment made our current income tax possible. Done during a republican admin. See the details from my above post.
Might be a good time for you to say parties change...
Micromanaging the war has been the phrasing they've been using.
Any oversight and control of the funding of this war is micromanaging by the Democrats. Totally untrue.
Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress authority to "raise and support Armies," and so they have a fiduciary responsibility to manage that money. It's the Republicans in Congress who failed to demand that the budgeting for this ongoing occupation be funded in the regular budget, rather than allowing Bush to continue to submit emergency appropriations authorizations.
The facts are such troublesome issues for those on the right it seems.
Here's the funny part. If it were President Clinton or President Obama in the same situation, the NeoClowns would be arguing the exact opposite point. You know it's true. When thy made this Executive Branch power grab, they assumed that Karl's plan to give them a permanent one-party rule would actually work.
Oh, you know it's true! Take for instance these comments from "Weathervane" McCain (give think progress credit for this!):
Cherrypicking is one of Hume's specialities. Remember how he cherry-picked a speech by FDR to cast Social Security as a temporary program?
Hume is the leader of the GOP talkingpointers over at FOX.
I thought hannity was ? is there an internal battle for the post ?
Most days he's just lucky to get through the broadcast without belching into the camera.
ANOTHER CASE IN POINT:
The Rightwing Bush supporters argue that Federal Attorneys General serve "at the pleasure" of the President, and so he can hire or fire them at will, for no reason, or for ANY reason.
True, as far as that goes. BUT, the President is ALSO sworn to "protect and defend" the Constitution, and the Constitution requires that he "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." It is THESE requirements which must ALSO be satisfied in all of his actions, including his dealings with the Justice Department, and the hirings and firings of personnel.
The question is NOT whether Bush has the POWER to remove Attorneys General. The question is whether, by exercising this right, he is violating any of his requirements to defend the Constitution and uphold the LAW. If his hirings and firings are for PARTISAN reasons, and are meant to INTERFERE with the proper execution of our laws ... either by pressing prosecutions against political enemies, or by supressing prosecutions of political friends ... then he stands in VIOLATION of his official duties. This is called "obstruction of justice" and is grounds for impeachment.
Hume would look ONLY to the statute that allows the President to hire and fire at will. This is certainly not the full story, and FOX is determined NOT to give the full story.
Answer: Hume, Fox and the constitution.... Question: Two of these things are alike and one is not, it does not belong- different is wrong (quoting Ani DeFranco)... which is it?
the president commands; congress funds; we the people get to watch on the sidelines. In order for the government to be flexible there are grey areas on the constitution and sometimes they can be exploited for ill...ask the cherokee.
Mabe He's testing the waters for a new reality show "Cheery Pick The Constitution."
SOOO, siting a specific part of the constitution makes it untrue? If the dems had guts they'd end the war the only way they constitutionally can....through defunding it. Once the dems in congress sided overwhelmingly to allow the war to start they gave the president total authority over the conflict. This claim is brought to you by those who want to regulate free press/speech through the fariness doctrine.
There you go again. Regulating free speech by allowing an opposing opinion somehow supresses the right to free speech. What is it about you twits that you can't stand the thought of someone defending themselves from your slurs?
Bunk. Congress gave Bush authority to begin hostilities. How the money is spent on this conflict always WAS and always WILL be Congress decision. They are doing exactly what the people want and showing guts doing so.
"Once the dems in congress sided overwhelmingly to allow the war to start they gave the president total authority over the conflict."
In no way did the Congress give the President "total authority over the conflict". The Congress always has appropriations power, which can include very restrictive stipulations as to how the money is spent, and oversight responsibilities. Article 1 gives Congress all authority to determine the prudence of initiating and maintaining war. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, directing the armed forces in the conduct of the war. He has no power, other than the power of persuasion, to initiate or continue a war. I can't envision anything else in a constitutional democracy. Does it seem rational to you that a President should be able to actively lead our country to defeat, with no action from Congress?
Cherry picker...Hume?
Brit's been popping GW's zits since before he could spell "dermotologist" [sic] or was it "zit picker-offer-him"! Problem is, which one is "he"?
SSHAW
Noooo. But it is sneaky. Uses put to there of etc.
I've had personal eperience with congressional defunding. Would you guess my experience would back you up? Can you imagine the chaos. Unecessary (more I mean) loss of life. I don't see much evidence that you have much respect for congress. Good, always be suspicious of th M.F.s. Exclusive of lawful oversite ? Then unable to respond to from this and other emerging information?
"Well Stanely. You've really done it this time!"
I feel some guilt over the response to your last, this being. Right Arm! Out of State! And Farm Out! Courtisie of the Dept. of Redundancy Department & The Natural Guard.
I am weak please forgive me.
Solon;
here's your quote: "Bunk. Congress gave Bush authority to begin hostilities. How the money is spent on this conflict always WAS and always WILL be Congress decision. They are doing exactly what the people want and showing guts doing so."
That is so plainly false as to be laughable (Maybe you might try reading the quotes from the Constitution above). Congress has the obligation to raise revenue (or not), but it is the executive's perogative as to how to the monies are spent.
Your other point is equally inane: There is no moral courage reflected in trying to defeat the war efforts of your own country for one's own political gain; the '07 Congress has no object other than making political hay against the GOP in '08.