About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

AP, CNN, Wash. Post reported GOP claim that Webb proposal is unconstitutional without noting Webb response

September 21, 2007 1:04 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: Reporting on Sen. Jim Webb's proposal to "specify minimum periods between deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces" deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, several media outlets noted Sen. John McCain's criticism that the amendment is "unconstitutional" without including comments from Webb or any other Democrat defending the constitutionality of the proposal.

19 Comments

In a September 19 article, the Associated Press' Anne Flaherty reported that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "blasted" an amendment by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) that sought to "specify minimum periods between deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces" deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The article quoted McCain calling the amendment "unconstitutional" and saying that Congress "has the right to declare war and to fund armies and navies. It says nothing about setting tours of duties." Similarly, in a September 19 report, CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash noted that Webb "knows he's up against staunch opposition from the Pentagon and Republican senators like John McCain, who say it's unconstitutional to limit the president's ability to deploy troops," while a September 20 Washington Post article uncritically reported that Republicans "called [the amendment] unconstitutional, difficult to enforce and certain to be vetoed." But neither the AP nor Bash included comments from Webb or any other Democrat defending the constitutionality of the proposal.

During the September 19 edition of CNN's American Morning, Webb was asked to respond to McCain's assertion that the "Constitution of the United States gives no authority for the Congress to set lengths of tour or lengths of duty in the military," and by doing so, he added, Congress is engaging in "micromanagement." Webb replied: "Senator McCain, who I've known for 30 years, needs to read the Constitution. There's a provision in Article I, Section 8, which clearly gives the Congress the authority to make rules with respect to the governance of the ground and naval forces. There's precedent for this." Article I, Section 8 states: "The Congress shall have power ... [t]o make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." CNN.com reported in a September 19 article: "Some GOP senators, including Arizona Sen. John McCain, said Webb's proposal amounted to an unconstitutional legislative infringement on Bush's powers as commander-in-chief." The article added that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "flatly rejected" the argument, saying: "We have a responsibility, by virtue of the Constitution, to work with the military, to set policy for the military," adding, "Anyone that suggests that the Webb amendment is unconstitutional either is not reading the law, or no one's explained it to them very well."

From the September 19 edition of CNN's American Morning:

KIRAN CHETRY (co-anchor): There have been questions though about whether or not that -- in theory it sounds good, but whether it would actually work tactically. And yesterday in Ohio, Senator John McCain, himself a war veteran, had this to say about the amendment. Let's listen.

McCAIN [video clip]: The Constitution of the United States gives no authority for the Congress of the United States to set lengths of tour or lengths of duty in the military, and I hope we will steadfastly reject this kind of micromanagement, which would create chaos.

CHETRY: That's what he said. Are you micromanaging or overstepping your bounds as a senator?

WEBB: First of all, Senator McCain, who I've known for 30 years, needs to read the Constitution. There's a provision in Article I, Section 8, which clearly gives the Congress the authority to make rules with respect to the governance of the ground and naval forces. There's precedent for this.

I used to run the mobilization programs in the Pentagon when I was assistant secretary of defense. And there's --

CHETRY: Why did it fail earlier this summer then if it's not contentious?

WEBB: Well, because the Iraq war is contentious. And it was roughly along party lines, although we did get seven Republicans for it. And I think that from now -- from then until now, hopefully, we've had enough people begin to understand more clearly how difficult this is for the men and women who are making these repeated deployments.

From a September 19 AP article:

Reid said the bill will be considered as an amendment to a defense policy bill on the floor, along with a proposal by Feingold that would cut off money for combat operations next year and one by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., limiting combat tours.

McCain blasted Webb's amendment as "unconstitutional."

"The Congress of the United States has the right to declare war and to fund armies and navies. It says nothing about setting tours of duties," he said.

From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the September 19 edition of CNN Newsroom:

BASH: Webb, a former Republican, says troop rest is even more critical since the president admitted the U.S. will be in Iraq for some time.

WEBB: They were denying it and denying it for years, and now they openly are saying this is going to be like Korea. So, I think they need to get their story straight.

BASH: Webb appears to have 57 of the 60 votes he needs and says he has a good chance at finding three more Republicans to pass his legislation.

But the senator says he also knows he's up against staunch opposition from the Pentagon and Republican senators like John McCain, who say it's unconstitutional to limit the president's ability to deploy troops.

Dana Bash, CNN, Capitol Hill.

From the September 20 Washington Post article:

The first time Webb offered his amendment, on July 11, it attracted more support than either side anticipated. Reid decided to revive the proposal when Congress resumed the Iraq debate this month. The Democrats' list of GOP targets included Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), George V. Voinovich (Ohio) and Elizabeth Dole (N.C.).

But as Republican interest grew in recent days, party leaders and Pentagon brass fanned out across the Capitol in a campaign to defeat the plan. They called it unconstitutional, difficult to enforce and certain to be vetoed.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by redking75687 (September 21, 2007 1:08 pm ET)
         

      How about this, Mr. Webb....no more tours in Iraq, period!!! Stop trying to act like you care. All you want to do is refresh the troops for their return to the front, not keep them out of harm's way. On your feet, boys. Say goodbye to the wives and children yet again. Back to the front!

      Troops. Home. NOW!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by spooky3 (September 21, 2007 2:11 pm ET)
           

        Remember that Webb's son is in the military and was in Iraq (and maybe he's gone back)?

        You can disagree with his proposal, even as a compromise that he might have thought he could get through Congress as opposed to what he or you might prefer to get done, but I think you're being a bit unfair to accuse him of faking caring. 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by MickD (September 21, 2007 2:15 pm ET)
           

        As Jon Stewart noted last night -- when did the Dems become Lionel Hutz?

        [link to www.crooksandliars.com]

        Report Abuse
    • Author by sundog (September 21, 2007 1:13 pm ET)
         

      Not to mention the fact that McCain's assertion on the Constitutionality of this is even at a glance flimsy at best.  Oh, I guess the Democrats did try to mention that.  Next we'll have people on the left angry at the Democrats for not defending the Constitutionality of this on the evening news.  It really is sad how much we are affected by the way these stories are covered.  Even those of us who think we're immune.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (September 21, 2007 1:16 pm ET)
         

      What John Boy and the rest of the Republicans are saying is that they will fight this war for as long as it takes with the people they have, regardless of the burden placed on those they repeatedly send back into harm's way.

      Institute the draft or admit that our military is at the breaking point.

      Or, defund the war immediately.

       There is no other way. 

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (September 21, 2007 1:32 pm ET)
         

      Certainly an interesting constitutional question. Unfair of CNN not to look for Webb's response.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (September 21, 2007 1:33 pm ET)
         

      "But out of the gobbledygook, comes a very clear thing: [unclear] you can’t trust the government; you can’t believe what they say; and you can’t rely on their judgment; and the – the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the President wants to do even though it’s wrong, and the President can be wrong.” -- H.R. Haldeman to President Nixon, Monday, 14 June 1971, 3:09 p.m. meeting.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (September 21, 2007 1:42 pm ET)
         

      "They called it unconstitutional, difficult to enforce and certain to be vetoed."

      It is constitutional, for the exact reasons Webb cited.

      Difficult to enforce?  How difficult is it to enforce the current 15-month tours?  An empty criticism at best.

      Certain to be vetoed?  Well, duh.  Bush will veto anything that eases the burden of this war on our troops and their families, that is, if it even manages to make it past an equally stubborn congressional minority.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (September 21, 2007 2:51 pm ET)
           

        Pete, I'm glad you're confident in your evaluation of the constitutionality of Webb's amendment, considering the Supreme Court Justices will probably have to put a lot more time and thought into it than you did.

        Just because you agree with Webb doesn't mean the amendment is constitutional. There is clearly a question of Congress's power to declare war and fund the effort vs. the President's power of command/control.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by sundog (September 21, 2007 2:57 pm ET)
             

          It wasn't passed. How exactly does an unpassed bill come before the Supreme Court? And the suggestion that we as citizens just don't have the tools to gauge the constitutionality of things just doesn't make sense. McCain isn't really privy to anything we're not in that regard. Contrary to your suggestion, I think the nation would be well served if we all thought about that very thing a lot more rather than less.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by dexteritas0071418 (September 21, 2007 3:22 pm ET)
               

            I wasn't implying that the Supreme Court would have to deal with it now, but if circumstances keep up as they do, I bet it'll come up eventually.

            I was not implying that a "common" citizen is any less able to judge the constitutionality of a law than John McCain. I was merely stating the obvious, that should the Court take up this issue, it will not be an easy decision.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by sundog (September 21, 2007 4:42 pm ET)
                 

              Thanks Dex, I get your meaning more now. McCain was just pulling an old one here though. It's a difficult thing for him politically to shoot this down. The right usually grandstands on 'supporting the troops' BS rhetoric that has everything to do with supporting starting a fight for them than supporting THEM per se. He was kind of hiding behind the Constitution here. My point is still that as citizens we can follow this debate, use our reasoning and see that the Democrat's defense of the Constitutionality of this is far more logical. That would be of course if the media would present both sides of the debate.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (September 21, 2007 3:55 pm ET)
             

          "I'm glad you're confident in your evaluation of the constitutionality of Webb's amendment"

          Citing the following passage, yes, I am 100% confident that the Webb amendment is constitutional:

          U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:

          The Congress shall have the power... 

          To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

          Crystal clear.  No further time or thought required, especially not by Bush's merry band of rubber stamp judges.

          "There is clearly a question of Congress's power to declare war and fund the effort vs. the President's power of command/control."

          I strongly disagree. 

          This is a question of Congress's power decreed to it by the Constitution to make rules for governing and regulating the land forces out of concern for the health and readiness of our troops VS. Bush's dire need to continue the war effort without having to resort to a draft. 

           

           

          Report Abuse
      • Author by SgtCedar (September 21, 2007 11:27 pm ET)
           

        As a retired Army Finance Sergeant I can assure every one it would be very easy to enforce the time at home requirement. I can only address the Army but all the military branches use an integrated personnel and finance system. Every unit in the Army reports the status of every member every day. The information is used by Finance to keep track of what pay the member is eligible to receive. If the member is deployed in a combat zone they are eligible for things like hazardous duty pay. If at home the member might be getting Basic Allowance for Subsistence.

        The whole system is computerized. The only excuse I can think of for members of congress or government officials thinking this requirement might be difficult would be that the few of them who were ever in the military were mostly in when all this sort of thing was done by hand.

        When I stared in the Finance Corps in the eighties a company would hand write a daily report which would be sent to battalion, they would include that information in a report to brigade. Brigade would forward the report to division. At the division level, or higher, finance and personnel would enter any changes in status into the computer system.

        By the time I retired from the military in the nineties  the whole system had been computerized. The company enters the report directly into the computer system. Each higher level just prints out a report of the status of every unit and person.

        The argument about whether the military could keep track of how long some member had been at home is an insult to every military pencil pusher like me who ever served the troops. If we could keep track of who was eligible for airborne pay, which has bizarre time requirements, we can track how long a service member has been at home.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by gg (September 21, 2007 2:13 pm ET)
         

      Cruel and Unusual punishment is also unconstitutional, but McCain, along with the rest of the Republican party seems to have no problem with that.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (September 21, 2007 2:48 pm ET)
         

      Why doesn't the constitution support the troops?  Why did the founding fathers want America to lose the war?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by sundog (September 21, 2007 3:10 pm ET)
           

        Michs

        Problem with those Founders I suspect is that there may have been some (gasp!) liberal thinkers among them. And to think, I thought what made America great was the color scheme on the flag. I always thought liberalism was caused by a virus which originated on a joint passed around at a Crosby Stills and Nash concert in 1969. Turns out the problem runs a little deeper than that. We're going to have to rip up the Constitution if we hope to rid ourselves of this pesky malady.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (September 21, 2007 3:24 pm ET)
             

          Sundog, I know not where you stand, but one of the most respectable things about the Founder's poli-philosophic liberalism was that it wasn't dogmatic...something that the extremes of each party in the US unfortunately cannot claim as a characteristic of their goals.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by sundog (September 21, 2007 4:57 pm ET)
               

            Well put Dex. Dogma is the deal. I've wondered sometimes if there isn't just a natural paradox at work due to modern mass-communication. With infinitely more bits of information being put in front of the public it seems like overall philosophies have been canned and packaged in the simplest (often untrue) way possible.

            Report Abuse
The Fox Effect
Media Matters Connect

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.