A full-service media consulting business • Multi-media campaigns, including internet • Freelance news reporting service • Political Commentary and Analysis • Voice-over talent, audio narration services, commercial voices • Public relations campaigns • Crisis communications consultants • Polling • Media training for business and executives • Press Release and News Conference preparation

“The Constitutional Questions of Combat” – The Sunday Political Brunch -- January 12, 2020


CHARLESTON, W. Va. – There has been a lot of clamor and controversy this week about President Trump over a U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian military leader Major General Qassem Soleimani. You hear people shout that it’s illegal and unconstitutional, and then there are those who say the president was on solid legal ground and had moral justification. This is not a new argument in the U.S. where the Constitution provides “checks and balances,” but not always clear-cut guidance. Let’s “brunch” on that this week.

“Presidential Powers” – Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says the following: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." So, ultimately, he’s the boss, but what is the extent of those powers and authorities? Clearly, the framers - in their brilliance, or desire for vagueness - left room for interpretation and adaptation over the years.

“Congressional Powers” – As with so many thinks in the U.S. Constitution, there's a 'point-counterpoint" strategy that sets up the separation of powers. In short, there are built in conflicts, as part of the checks and balances. And the tensions between the executive and legislative branches often have to be settled by the judicial branch. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution states: [The Congress shall have Power ...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

“So, Who’s the Boss?” – This question has been argued about for years, and there still is no consensus or agreement. I think the best assessment is that the president has power to direct military action in the immediate, short-term, i.e. in response to a terrorist attack, while Congress has a broader, more powerful voice if we are talking about a potentially long-term conflict, with unclear intentions, such as the Vietnam War.

“The War Powers Resolution” – The Vietnam War is clearly the tipping point on the debate over who has the Constitutional authority to direct military action. Sometimes it’s abundantly clear: Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, and it declares war on the United States, as does Germany. Certainly, as Commander-in-Chief, President Roosevelt could order a military strike, while he awaited an official Declaration of War from Congress. Vietnam was not Pearl Harbor, and therefore not as clear in direction and goal.

“Let’s Share the Responsibility” – Vietnam went on for years, from President Eisenhower in the 1950s through President Ford in the 1970s. There was considerable animosity – especially aimed at President Johnson – for carrying on a “war” that was never declared by Congress. The War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in 1973 stated, “The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States,” (which only Congress can pass).

“Targeting Foreign Leaders” – In 1976, President Gerald Ford signed Executive Order # 11905 which stated, "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination." The administration of George W. Bush, with Congressional blessing, essentially rescinded that Executive Order.

“Bush II and the 9-11 Changes” – The September 11, 2001 seemingly changed the ground rules in a lot of ways and Congress passed a very generic joint resolution authorizing President George W. Bush (or any president) to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks.” One could argue that gave President Obama the authority to have Osama bin Laden killed in Pakistan in 2011, and now President Trump ordering the targeted killing of Soleimani.

“The Hodge-Podge of Rules” – What we have is a moving target of rules, and I don’t mean to use that phrase as a pun. We have Constitutional language that gives both a president and Congress rather vague and overlapping (and yes, even sometimes conflicting authority). Then we have Congressional Resolutions and Executive Orders that, while attempting to clarify the situation, muddy the waters further. My analysis is that collectively these rules give any president the authority to make a short-term strike against a bin Laden or Soleimani when time is of the essence. When it is likely to be a more long-term situation such as a large military intervention or war, then more authority falls to Congress. I haven’t even considered what broader international policies such as the Geneva Conventions have to say, because for this discussion I am just examining internal U.S. policy.

Do you think what President Trump did in ordering the killing of the Iraqi General was illegal or unconstitutional? Or was he on point? Just click the comment button and let us know your thoughts!

© 2020, Mark Curtis Media, LLC

Mark Curtis, Ed.D., is Chief Political Reporter for the five Nexstar Media TV stations serving West Virginia, it’s five neighboring states and most of the Washington, D.C. media market. He is a National Contributing Political Writer for the White House Patch at www.Patch.com

Photo courtesy: Getty Images

Money Makes the Political World Go ‘Round – “Sunday Political Brunch” - January 5, 2020


CHARLESTON, W. Va. – There’s an old saying, “Money is the Mother’s Milk of Politics!” It’s a recognition that fundraising is a critical part of office seeking, from the White House, on down. To me, it’s over-simplified. I’ve always preached my “Four M’s of Politics: Money, Manpower, Message and Momentum!” But this week quarterly and annual finance reports came due, and it may say a lot about where this race is going, so let’s “brunch” on that this week!

“Bernie’s Burnin’ Bucks” – After some lackluster debate performances, Senator Bernie Sanders has gotten fired up again in the past two contests, and that may explain the uptick in his fundraising. Sanders’ campaign took in $35.5 million dollars in the last quarter, in many cases due to the collectively large number of smaller donors he typically sees. According to the latest Real Clear Politics (RCP) composite poll, Sanders is now a strong second for the nomination in national polls, has moved back into the number two slot in Iowa, and is leading in New Hampshire.

“Trump, ‘Trumps’ them All” – For an officeholder whom experts would have you believe is so unpopular, President Trump actually leads the fundraising race (which is not unusual for any incumbent from either party). In the final quarter of 2019, the Trump campaign filed reports saying it had raised $46 million dollars, which was more than any other candidate. And yes, the president is very wealthy in his own right, but these donations do not include whatever he may have tossed into the pot. Clearly his base support is solid, and it shows from individual contributions.

“Paying Down on Pete” – South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has been surging, largely on consistently solid debate performances. His campaign raised $24.7 million dollars in the last quarter. In the national RCP composite poll, he is still in fourth place with just 8.3 percent, but he leads in Iowa, favored by 22 percent of those polled. I mentioned the importance of momentum earlier. If Buttigieg holds on and scores an upset in Iowa, he’ll have huge momentum. Remember, at different stages of this race, Biden, Warren, and Sanders have all polled ahead in Iowa, so we’ve had four different frontrunners, with the caucuses just a month away on February 3rd. A last-minute fundraising surge helps buy media advertising.

“The Ying and Yang of It” – The fourth most prolific fundraiser in the fourth quarter after Trump, Sanders and Buttigieg, was businessman-turned-upstart-candidate Andrew Yang, who collected $16.7 million dollars. He’s caught the public fancy with ideas such as giving every person in the country $1,000 a month (or something like that). He’s catchy and quotable and I admit wins my, “Most Intriguing Candidate Award,” (which is NOT an endorsement, just a fascination). While Yang has raised $32 million overall, he’s only spent $9 million. Flush with that kind of cash he could buy lots of ads and half-hour infomercials in the early states. He’s in this race!

“Warren’s War Chest” – The Federal Election Commission, FEC filings, show that Senator Elizabeth Warren has raised just shy of $80 million dollars, including her campaign’s estimate of $17 million in the fourth quarter. While she has spent $35 million, she basically has a huge campaign war chest for final ad blitzes in the first four contests of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. She’ll need to spend it. The RCP composite poll has her running third nationally, but she’s faded to fourth in the latest Iowa and New Hampshire polls.

“Biden’s Bucks?” – If there’s one candidate whose campaign funding may seem lackluster by comparison, it’s that of former Vice President Joe Biden. He raised just $38 million dollars in the first three quarters and is projecting another $22 million for the fourth quarter. But, just $60 million for the two-term VP? That seems anemic. Biden leads the RCP national poll by nine points, but national polls are more of a “beauty contest” since there is no national primary. Biden is currently polling third in both Iowa and New Hampshire but is the frontrunner in Nevada and South Carolina. If he can survive the first four contests intact, then he may indeed be the national frontrunner.

“The ‘Four M’s of Politics’” – I repeat my mantra that the four key elements are money, manpower, message and momentum. First, let’s dispel a myth: the person with the most money always wins. It’s just not true. Time and time again in presidential, congressional, gubernational and on down the line, the person who raises the most cash, does not always win. Building a loyal and wide campaign staff is critical. Having issues (and messages) that resonate with average voters is critical (think underdog Barack Obama in 2008). And then seizing on momentum, like a strong “Top Three” finish in Iowa and New Hampshire can help a campaign catch fire. Yes, money is great, but it’s only part of the magic elixir of the “Four M’s.”

We’re a month away from the Iowa Caucuses, so who’s your pick right now? And are you a firm commitment, or might you change your mind? Click the comment button and let us now.

Mark Curtis, Ed.D., is the Chief Political Reporter for the five Nexstar Media TV stations serving West Virginia, its five neighboring states and most of the Washington, D.C. media market. He is also a National Contributing Political Writer for the White House Patch at www.Patch.com.

© 2020, Mark Curtis Media, LLC

Photo courtesy: Getty Images

Syndicate content