| |
 |
| March 15th, 2007 |
|
Media Contact(s): Peter Carr (202) 224-9854,
Jared Whitley (202) 224-5251 |
|
Printable Version |
|
|
FLOOR SPEECH: MAINTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF WARTIME POWERS
|
| |
Washington - Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) today spoke out against S. Res. 107, which Hatch maintains unconstitutionally attacks the wartime separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches. Hatch's prepared remarks follow.
Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I voted against S. Res.107.
First, I must applaud Senator Murray for what I believe was the overall premise of her amendment, to show the entire Congress’s resolve in supporting our troops.
I fully agree with the portion of the amendment that reaffirms the Senate’s commitment to providing the “necessary funds for training, equipment, and other support for troops in the field, as such actions will ensure their safety and effectiveness in preparing for and carrying out their assigned duties.”
This is a policy to which I have dedicated my entire Senate career.
However, as a lawyer, I believe that it is also my duty to evaluate and work toward ensuring that all legislation which the Senate passes is strictly within the limits of our constitutional powers. As the preamble states, “Under the Constitution, the President and Congress have shared responsibilities for decisions on the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, including their mission, and for supporting the Armed Forces, especially during wartime.”
Unfortunately, S. Res. 107 does not meet that test. While at first glance the passage I just cited may seem innocuous, the phrase “shared responsibilities” raises important separation of powers questions.
As we all know, the Constitution does not speak of shared powers, it speaks of the different branches of government having separate and distinct powers -- a point which is at the core of the debate on our nation’s policies toward Iraq.
Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the President is the “Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” However, Congress’ role is limited in Article I, Section 8 which, in part, reads “…The Congress shall have power to …provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States… To declare war…to raise and support armies…to provide and maintain a navy… to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; … to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions… to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States…”
Mr. President, these are very different powers; they are not shared. The Constitution provides for only one Commander-in-Chief. Our troops are facing enough challenges in the weeks and months ahead -- they do not need to worry if there will be 435 Commanders-in-Chief.
It is important that we remember this point now more then ever. And so, it is my analysis that the “shared powers” reference in S. Res. 107 clearly raises constitutional concerns, and that is why I voted against S.Res.107.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
|
| |
| ### |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Radio Clip | 
Television Clip
