In this commentary, American University's Chris Edeldson says it would be a mistake to make decisions about ISIS based on fear, including the decision that any one President can or should take on this problem single-handedly.
In the aftermath of the terrifying mass murder carried out by terrorists in Paris last Friday, as well as horrific attacks in Beirut last week, it is understandable that Americans are wondering what can be done to stop ISIS, which has claimed responsibility for the attacks and issued a threat against the United States. In Saturday night’s Democratic presidential debate, moderators hastily shifted gears to add questions focused on ISIS. Republican candidates quickly took to social media to offer their own responses to the Paris attacks. Headlines declare that “ISIS Puts Pressure on Obama to Act.”
With press attention focusing on the office of the presidency, one might conclude that Americans may reasonably look for answers from one person – either the current or next president of the United States – to the threat posed by ISIS. Unfortunately, no one person is likely to be able to live up to these expectations. Fortunately, the U.S. constitutional system does not expect any one person to take on such a task alone.
The drafters of the Constitution could not, of course, have anticipated modern terrorist attacks in 21st century cities, but, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, “[t]hey knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, [and] knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation.” The framers of the Constitution had just rid themselves of one monarch and did not want to create a new one under the Constitution. They carefully divided powers over war and foreign affairs between the President and Congress, rather than concentrating such powers in the hands of the executive, as the Constitution’s text makes clear. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 69, under the Constitution the President’s war powers would be “much inferior” to the British king, as the power to declare war would belong to Congress under the American system. In the framers’ model, the President could only use military force unilaterally to repel a sudden attack when there was no time to consult Congress first.
The framers’ model balances the need for effective power against the need for meaningful limits on that power. Presidential war power, like other federal government power, is subject to checks and balances. War power is not concentrated in the hands of the President, but the President can act quickly and decisively when necessary. This model effectively guards against monarchs or dictators while also providing sufficient emergency power.
The theoretical model is satisfying on paper, but the Constitution’s “parchment barriers” are tested when we face a specific threat—especially one as terrifying as that posed by ISIS. Americans (and others) are frightened, and we instinctively turn to one person for reassurance and security, as a child might look to his or her parent. But in our system of constitutional democracy, Americans are not children. The American Revolution threw off a system of government in which royal subjects were, in Gordon Wood’s words, “a kind of child, to be personally subordinated to a paternal dominion [by the king].”
It might seem comforting to place our hopes in the idea of a wise president who can keep us all safe, but such a mindset is antithetical to the notion of democratic self-government. History reminds us, as well, that presidents can make serious mistakes. ISIS itself came into existence after the Bush administration championed the need to go to war in Iraq in 2003, and ISIS gained a new stronghold after the Obama administration took unilateral military action against Libya in 2011. This year’s crop of presidential candidates has, so far, failed to offer any thoughtful solutions to the current threat posed by ISIS.
Terrorism is designed to use fear as a tactic. It can, of course, be quite effective. But we should not set aside our constitutional system in responding to ISIS. It would be a mistake to make decisions based on fear, including the decision that any one President can or should take on this problem single-handedly. History teaches that unilateral presidential action is often neither wise nor necessary. As a recent example, U.S. military action against ISIS began in June 2014; the President was not forced by exigent circumstances to act alone. Members of Congress are now calling on the President to take additional action. But Congress cannot disclaim its own responsibility. ISIS is a problem we all must confront—the President, Congress, the American public, and indeed people around the world. We’re all in this together, and our constitutional system of government provides a framework for united cooperative action. But the Constitution is not self-enforcing. If Americans are indeed committed to constitutional democracy even in the face of the threat posed by ISIS, we will have to insist that it continues to be essential and indispensable.
Chris Edelson is an assistant professor of government in American University’s School of Public Affairs. He is the author of “Emergency Presidential Power: From the Drafting of the Constitution to the War on Terror,” published in 2013 by the University of Wisconsin Press. His second book, Power Without Constraint: The Post 9/11 Presidency and National Security, will be published in spring 2016 by the University of Wisconsin Press.
