Is the Afghanistan War Violating the Constitution?
We asked: “You, as all senators, are pledged to uphold the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8says that Congress has the power ‘to declare war’. Aren’t we operating in an unconstitutional manner?”
Feingold stated that Congress “should actually be declaring war in such situations” (which — perhaps unintentionally — implies which way the votes would go) and that he’s raised the point many times. But he refrained from explicitly calling the current situation unconstitutional. Feingold added: “We did have a resolution on this Afghanistan war in the beginning that clearly authorized this action even though it wasn’t a formal declaration of war. But that doesn’t mean you can just stay in a place forever without any sort of renewal of it.”
(Feingold was presumably referring to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed on Sept. 18, 2001, which technically doesn’t explicitly mention Afghanistan. Arguments questioning the legality of the AUMF and what is happening have been written by Francis Boyle, David Lindorff, and Sherwood Ross. Also, for a more precise look at war powers, see a this week’s essay from Bill Moyers Journal.)
We then asked Feingold: “Is there going to be an up or down vote on the funding?”
Feingold: “I certainly intend to try to force that, yes.” (For an article on the prospects of an up or down vote, see Robert Naiman’s “We Need a Clean Vote Now on Afghanistan Escalation.”)
Feingold Acknowledges Israel’s Nuclear Weapons
We asked Feingold: “Helen Thomas asked Obama at his first news conference if he knew of any country in the Mideast which possesses nuclear weapons. He said he didn’t want to ‘speculate’ (see video). Senator: Do you know of any country in the Mideast that has nuclear weapons?”
Feingold initially responded: “I’m not free to comment on that.”
However, after further questioning, he changed.
Question: “Why can you not say that Israel is a nuclear power, Senator?”
Feingold: “I basically think it is, but I’m not somebody who is privy to all the details on that. Pakistan clearly is, Pakistan concedes it, admits it.”
Question: “Do you have an estimate as to how many nuclear weapons Israel would have?”
Feingold: “I do not.”
While Feingold should almost certainly have been more forthright — he is on the Select Committee on Intelligence as well as the Foreign Relations Committee — he was more willing to basically acknowledge the existence of Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal than many establishment politicians, for example, see Stakeout’s questioning of John Edwards.
Feingold Dodges Question About Getting CBO Numbers on Single Payer
Perhaps most significantly, Feingold did not respond to repeated questioning about why he hasn’t gotten the Congressional Budget Office to “score” a single payer healthcare program.
He did say some nice things about the plan, which would take the insurance companies out of their central role in the system by having a single entity that would cover everyone. But such support is rhetorical. What’s been needed is for the Congressional Budget Office to come out with numbers assessing what people like former New England Journal of Medicine editor Dr. Marcia Angell’s have been arguing: that it’s the only way to cover everyone and control costs.
Our questions: “Have you tried to ask the Congressional Budget Office for an assessment to verify or falsify that [Angell's assertion]?” and “But why not get the CBO to crank the numbers?” went unanswered.
Background: The CBO had favorable findings for single payer in 1993.
Camera and video work by Brandon Kramer.
[originally published on Washington Stakeout on Dec. 6, 2009; posted on posthaven Nov. 13, 2015]