THE CONGRESS: The Crack in the Constitution

THE U.S. is facing a constitutional crisis. That branch of Government that most closely represents the people is not yet broken, but it is bent and in danger of snapping. A Congress intended by the framers of the Constitution to be the nation's supreme policy setter, lawmaker and reflector of the collective will has been forfeiting its powers for years. Now a President in the aftermath of a landslide seems intent upon further subordinating it and establishing the White House ever more firmly as the center of federal power.

Whatever the merits of Richard Nixon's intentions in trying to hold down federal spending or seeking peace in Viet Nam in his own way, his actions represent, among other things, a serious challenge to Congress as an institution. In Viet Nam, he has mined harbors and turned the massive bombing on and off like a spigot with no advance consultation with Congress and with explanation, if at all, only after the fact. He has vetoed congressional appropriations, which is his right. But he has also ignored Congress when it over rode his veto, refusing to spend the money appropriated—which is not his clear right. He has used a brief recess of Congress to "pocket veto" bills, extending a power intended only as an end-of-session action. Even as he centralizes more powers of the Executive Branch within his White House staff, he has drawn a cloak of Executive privilege around his men, refusing to allow key decision makers to be questioned by congressional committees. The trend could be ominous for the future of representative government.

As the 93rd Congress convened last week, there were signs that the lawmakers are finally aroused, determined to meet the White House challenge. While Nixon had his landslide, 96% of incumbent Congressmen seeking re-election and 80% of such Senators also won. Pre dominantly Democratic, they feel they have a mandate of their own.

Although the institutional integrity of Congress is more than a partisan concern, the Democratic leaders of both chambers—often criticized for their meekness in letting their powers erode —sounded especially angry. "If there is one mandate to us above all others," Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield told the Senate Democratic caucus, "it is to exercise our separate and distinct constitutional role in the operation of the Federal Government. The people have called for the reinforcement of the checks and balances." House Speaker Carl Albert similarly vowed to "work harder than I have ever worked in my life . . . to safeguard the constitutional role of the House as a strong and influential branch of our national Government."

More concretely, members of both houses expressed stronger sentiment than ever to cut off funds for the Viet Nam War unless Nixon quickly negotiates peace (see story, page 11). Indignant at Nixon's bombing tactics while Congress was in adjournment, Mansfield proposed that it never again adjourn sine die, retaining instead the right to call itself back into special session—a brusque indication that Mansfield does not trust Nixon. Rather than waiting for the President to present his legislative requests, Mansfield and Albert both listed priorities of their own—mainly bills that Nixon had vetoed last year.