Another Crisis of Presidential War-Making : An unconstitutional slide toward combat with Haiti.

The Clinton Administration seems to be slowly sliding toward war with Haiti. The goal, to restore democracy, sounds noble, but the means would be brutal: invading and occupying another sovereign state. Moreover, the constitutional power to decide to do so lies with Congress, not the President.

Not that modern chief executives admit to many limitations on their war-making power. In the fall of 1990, for instance, George Bush stated that he didn’t think he needed congressional approval before attacking Iraq. He only reluctantly accepted Congress’ plan to vote and the lawmakers’ narrow endorsement of war avoided a serious constitutional crisis. But Bill Clinton is now similarly contemplating war without legislative assent.

There are, however, few issues where the language of the U.S. Constitution, intentions of the framers and historical record are clearer. The American colonists consciously avoided the European model of all-powerful executives when they created their new system. Article 1 of the Constitution states that “Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war.” The President is to fulfill his responsibilities as commander in chief within the framework established by the Constitution.

James Madison wrote in 1793 that it is necessary to adhere to the “fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” Delegates changed Congress’ authority from “make’ to “declare” war, explained Madison, only to allow the President the authority to respond to a sudden attack.

Delegates rejected a proposal to give the President the power to start war. Explained Virginia’s George Mason: The President “is not safely to be entrusted with” the power to decide on war. Mason favored “clogging rather than facilitating war.” James Wilson, though an advocate of a strong presidency, approvingly observed that the new constitutional system “will not hurry us into war.” Similarly, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “we have already given . . . one effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose.” Even nationalist Alexander Hamilton agreed with his long-time adversary on this point.

Advocates of expansive executive war power--oddly enough, including some who claim to believe in a jurisprudence of “original intent”--nevertheless have come up with a number of reasons to give the President unrestrained authority to act. One is that he must be able to use the military for “defensive” purposes. True, but defensive means defensive: At the Constitutional Convention, Roger Sherman of Connecticut stated that “the executive should be able to repel and not to commence war.” If President Clinton wants to “commence” war to overthrow Haiti’s ruling regime, he must go to Congress.

Another argument is that it is impractical to involve the legislative branch in foreign affairs. But Congress’ vote in January of 1991 proves the contrary. While 535 legislators cannot direct the course of an attack on Haiti or anywhere else, they can decide whether or not the nation should go to war.

Nor would a congressional debate tip off the Cedras junta as to the timing of any potential military action. Congress has four times approved conditional declarations of war, authorizing the President to use force if certain objectives were not achieved. In three instances, the executive branch peacefully resolved the disputes; in the fourth, war ensued after Spain refused Congress’ demand that it withdraw from Cuba. Following these precedents, the President could ask Congress to authorize the use of force if Haiti’s military rulers do not yield power after some reasonable period of time.

Finally, proponents of executive war-making contend that ample precedent, 200 or more troop deployments without congressional approval, exists for the President to unilaterally initiate hostilities. Most of these were minor skirmishes, however, offering no justification for conquering another nation. And the fact that past chief executives acted lawlessly does not empower the current one to do likewise.

There is no more important issue than war and peace. Should young Americans die to “restore” democracy in a nation with no democratic tradition? We need a broad national debate to answer this question. Indeed, the President can scarcely talk of respecting democracy in Haiti if he does not follow the U.S. Constitution by asking Congress to vote first. And if he refuses to ask, Congress should schedule a vote now, well before an invasion is under way. Given the recent record of presidential misbehavior, it is important for Congress to maintain what Jefferson called the Constitution’s “check to the dog of war.”