James Joyner picks up on Mario Cuomo’s piece in the NYT in which Mario says that Senators Jim Webb and Hillary Clinton are off track when they want Congress to enact law demanding that the president “go before Congress to ask for a ‘declaration of war’ before proceeding with an attack against Iran or any other nation.”

But there is no need for this demand to be put into law, as the two Democrats and their colleagues are seeking to do, any more than there is need for legislation to guarantee our right of free speech or anything else protected by the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8 already provides that only Congress has the power to declare war.

Mario has more to say, of course, and James goes on to discuss how the warring powers of the executive and the Congress have been muddied since Thomas Jefferson’s administration.

But here’s the part of Mario’s piece that caught my eye:

Because the Constitution cannot be amended by persistent evasion, this mandate was neither erased nor modified by the actions or inactions of timid Congresses that allowed overeager presidents to start wars in Vietnam and elsewhere without making a declaration.

What??? “… the Constitution cannot be amended by persistent evasion…”???

Sure it can, Mario, it happens all the time! The earliest example I can think of was Justice John Marshall’s declaration in Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Court could invalidate the actions of the other two branches of government. Yet the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court any such authority. As Thomas Jefferson complained,

In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that ‘the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.’ If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

So Mr. Cuomo might want to think again.

Not even a year ago the Democrats in Congress and others of their allies vehemently charged President Bush for not listening to the military. They criticized the civilian leadership of our defense establishment for creating a culture of fear wherein generals were afraid to challenge military policy. The capital sin, said they, was failing to listen to and heed General Eric Shinseki when he testified before Congress that we would need several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq as opposed to the 100,000-plus that Rumsfeld wanted to send.

Congress said they were listening and accused the administration of willfully deaf ears and further accused the administration of being married to a strategy of defeat.

Within this last year the Democrats in Congress got their wish. They won control and Bush listened as he sent Rumsfeld packing and appointed a man in Secretary Gates who promised to listen to the generals. The administration also replaced the generals who had gone along with the failed policy (or so as the Democrats had accused them) and replaced them with generals who preached a new strategy and whom Congress overwhelmingly approved. Enter General David Petraeus.

In the same vein as General Shinseki – previously hailed as a sage by the Democrats (and who did happen to be correct as was former CENTCOM commander General Anthony Zinni at the same time) – General Petraeus asked for more troops. Bush, who had been reluctant to send overwhelming force before, agreed to send a surge of the bare minimum – but send them he did. And Congress squealed. Why? Hadn’t they been the ones who were listening all along? Bush was finally listening!

And the military continues to speak its needs to those who will listen…and to those who won’t. Recently General Petraeus stated that while generals would always like more troops, what he really needs is time. Major General Rick Lynch, commander of thousands of US and Iraqi troops south of Baghdad states that we need time to capitalize on the success of the surge to date. He tells us that the first question he gets from Iraqis is “Are you going to stay?” That’s the same question Afghans asked me during my own tour in Afghanistan. Time is the precious commodity needed.

And the surge is working. The latest report comes no less from the New York Times in an essay written by leading members of the left leaning Brookings Institution. Regular critics of the war effort, this time Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack proclaim that “there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008,” exactly the minimum time that the military is asking for.

The conventional wisdom is that al Qaeda only needs to outwait the US. Time is on al Qaeda’s side, we are told. Well, al Qaeda has no more time than we do. Why would we cede a strategic advantage to our enemies by imagining that we have less time to accomplish our objectives than they do? We have as much time as we are willing to take. Away with electioneering when lives are at stake!

President Bush is willing to stake the remainder of his presidency and indeed his entire legacy on giving Petraeus what he needs - time. The military is speaking. Bush is listening. The skeptical Brookings Institute is no less listening. And even the Bush-hating New York Times is listening inasmuch as they are willing to publish such essays and reports of surge success. The momentum has shifted in our favor in Iraq. Nothing is lost so long as we don’t give it away. So is the Congress – anti-war Democrats and weakening Republicans alike - listening? Who is now married to a strategy of defeat?

Michelle Malkin posts a jpeg sent her by a reader who was sent a renewal form for his RNC membership. He sent the form back suitably modified.

Yesterday I was called by an RNC pollster. (I am not a member of any political party.) For some reason I’ve gotten several calls in the last few weeks from various polling organizations, but have always declined to participate. This guy was pretty smooth, though. before I could say, ‘no thanks, have a nice day,’ he went straight to his first question. It went like this:

RNC: Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Bush is doing his job?

ME: Disapprove.

RNC: -click-

I take it there are some feedbacks they just don’t want to hear. But Tennessee’s new senator, Bob Corker, seems to get it. No fear, Bob, after you’ve been in DC for four years or so you’ll be as tone deaf as the rest of them.

There was a brief rumor going about that the recent diagnosis of a blood clot in Vice President Cheney’s left leg could cause him to resign his office. Rumor further went on that SecState Condoleeza Rice would then be nominated to take the veep’s office.

Which leads me to a political thought experiment. Let’s assume the following - all huge assumptions at this time, but this is, after all, a thought experiment.

1. Cheney does resign for health reasons (or any other reason you care to imagine) by the end of spring.

2. President Bush nominates not Rice, but former SecState Colin Powell to assume the vice president’s office. Powell accepts and is quickly confirmed by the Senate.

3. In early 2008, Powell announces he’s running for president.

4. Barack Obama becomes the Democrats’ presidential nominee.

Who wins the election in November 2008? Leave a comment.

Nota bene: I will delete all comments that attempt to change the terms of the thought experiment. Don’t bother writing that Powell will never accept high office again, he won’t ever run for president, or that Rice would be better than Powell, etc. Not interested. The terms are the terms. If you wish to run a thought experiment with different terms, fine, email (not comment) me the link and I’ll be glad to post it here as an addendum.

Now, comment away.

The Weekly Standard as an article about the kerfuffle over Southern Methodist University’s bid to host the G.W. Bush library.

LATE LAST YEAR, dozens of faculty members at Southern Methodist University publicly opposed plans by President Bush to locate his presidential library on SMU’s campus in Dallas.

Now, ten bishops of the United Methodist Church, which owns the school, and of which President Bush is a member, are urging SMU to reject the library and are circulating a petition for others to sign.

A chief organizer in stopping the Bush library is a former professor at SMU’s Perkins School of Theology, who told the Dallas Morning News that he doesn’t want his school to “hitch its future star” to the war and other aspects of President Bush’s legacy.

President and Mrs. Bush are members of Highland Park United Methodist Church in Dallas. Its pastor, the Rev. Mark Craig, is an SMU trustee who supports the library at SMU. The whole thing is, of course, just another example of Bush Derangement Syndrome, but here’s the kicker:

For decades, United Methodist bishops have largely declined to criticize their denomination’s schools as they slipped away from their Christian moorings and became virtually secular institutions. Typical campus life at Methodist schools is not behaviorally different from most other major universities. The faculty, who often adhere to the same academic fads and ideologies of secular schools, are rarely expected to sign faith statements, belong to churches, or even be reverent towards religion. Even United Methodist seminary professors sometimes reject Christian orthodoxy. Some even reject theism itself.

Bishops have almost always defended their schools’ academic independence, even as they often served on the schools’ boards and helped channel church funding to them. But hosting the presidential library of President Bush, a fellow church member, is apparently a bridge too far for some of the church’s bishops and the 4,000 other signatories to the anti-Bush library petition.

They’ve finally found a heresy which they cannot accept.

As long-time readers here know, I am an ordained pastor on the UMC and while I am utterly unsurprised at the knee-jerkiness of the 10 bishops, I am also heartened to see that at last, at last, dear heaven, they have actually decided to stand firmly for something. Okay, against something, but still . . .

As has been well reported, some Republican senators voted along with Democrats on a resolution opposing sending additional troops to Iraq. How did Tennessee’s two Republican senators come down on the issue?

Lamar Alexander emailed Nashville blogger Bill Hobbs,

The situation in Iraq is worse, and the time has come to change our strategy. I have read the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report, heard recommendations from leaders in the military, and I listened carefully to President Bush’s proposal for success.

Sending 21,500 more American troops temporarily into Iraq to try to stop sectarian violence is not, by itself, new or a strategy for success.

Lamar made it clear that he strongly opposes sending more troops, but when it came time to go on the record with his vote, he did not vote for the resolution. So does he or doesn’t he support or oppose the increase? Who knows?

Our state’s freshman senator, Bob Corker, also voted against the resolution. But what does he really think? His position either has changed since the vote or it wasn’t reported accurately by media to begin with (I’ll give 50-50 either way). Soldier’s Mom reports that at first Corker was quoted thus:

Republican Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said he didn’t support the resolution because he didn’t believe it would affect administration policy. Instead, he said next time he talks to Tennessee soldiers he will tell them, “I oppose what you are doing but I thank you for your service.”

That was from version one of an FNC story. But now the story has been edited and quotes Corker this way:

Republican Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said he didn’t support the resolution because he didn’t believe it would affect administration policy, and he believed it wouldn’t give troops the right message.

“So, in essence, what I’ll be doing the next time if I see them, if I vote for this resolution, is to say: I’m opposed to you being there, but thank you for what you’re doing,” Corker said.

That does change the tenor of his position. But it leaves open the question of whether he would have voted aye if he had thought it would change the administration’s policy.

Thanks for taking such a clear stand, guys.

Bill Hobbs says that on the only part of the speech that really matters, the war, President Bush “absolutely nailed the big issues at stake.”

In that part of the speech, Bush said,

And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work.

Stephen Green, who sadly (luckily?) does not think governmentally, observes of Bush’s plea, “I don’t remember any stories about FDR talking up D-Day before the fact, and trying to weasel support out of Congress for it.” Well, back then, no one was claiming that FDR and the US military were the ones who carried out the Pearl Harbor attack and that the “New York money people” (cough , Jews, cough) had engineered America’s entry into war to stop the Holocaust or something. Neither was more than a third FDR’s opposition party - and tenth of his own - actually wanting FDR’s military strategy to defeat the Axis to fail. Nor was anyone of either party calling for the withdrawal of US troops from the combat theaters before the enemy was beaten.

Jules Crittenden, blogger and bona fide journalist (excelling at both), is less impressed by media reportage of the speech than by the speech itself. Read it all. He also quotes Stratfor’s excellent point:

“Bush’s poll ratings have now become a geopolitical issue. …

“Bush’s strategy in Iraq, to the extent that it has any viability, depends on the Iraqi — and Iranian — perception that Bush retains control of U.S. policy and that he has freedom to maneuver. Iraqi and Iranian politicians are watching the polls and watching Congress. …

“Bush is now edging from the area where we can call him a crippled president — if not a failed one — to an area where he could genuinely lose the ability to govern.”

Folks, this is not a good thing, no matter where you stand politically.

Joe Gandelman says that Bush’s speech was “less partisan” than before (as if he had a choice) and offers other thoughts as well as a typically link-rich survey of thoughts across the media and the b’sphere.

My own take: despite that the president delivered the speech well, despite its clarity and simplicity, and despite its actual forcefulness on the stakes of the war, the speech was that of a clearly hobbled lame duck. My evidence? When Bush asked Congress to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act, Republicans applauded tepidly and Democrats not at all. This despite the fact that NCLB was the most bipartisan intiative this president has ever achieved and the Act itself was practically written by Teddy Kennedy. I was genuinely mystified why the Democrats were silent at this point - not only was NCLB written mainly by their party but it strengthens the federal grip on local education more than ever. Then at Instapundit I read Ruth Marcus’s observation regarding the health care part of the speech:

Listening to Democratic reaction to Bush’s new health insurance proposal, you get the sense that if Bush picked a plank right out of the Democratic platform — if he introduced Hillarycare itself — and stuck it in his State of the Union address, Democrats would churn out press releases denouncing it.

That sounds about right. This president is so politically isolated that the opposition party neither wants nor needs to appear to support him, even when he’s carrying their water.