HAITI INVASION SUBVERTS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Secretary of State Warren Christopher all but tells us that the decision to invade Haiti has been made. October might be the best time politically -- when there will be no annoying voices around town to object or question why.

We already know the name of the first casualty of the Haiti invasion: The Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution very clearly gives to Congress the authority to declare ware and to the president the duty, once war is declared, to wage it as commander-in-chief.

Congress most recently faced up to this responsibility in the Persian Gulf War. On January 12, 1991 the Senate by a vote of 52-47 and the House of Representatives by a vote of 250-183 authorized President George Bush to use American armed forces against Iraq.

The Gulf War was, to be sure, a big deal -- we sent 400,000 American troops half a world away. Haiti, at least the invading of it, is a little deal -- we will send 10,000 troops into a lightly armed, bankrupt nation in our own backyard. In the Gulf War, we got in and got our ground forces out expeditiously. In Haiti, we, in some guise or other, are going to be there a while. In the Gulf War, we had the assistance of allies like Great Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria. In Haiti, we will have the vigorous support of troops from Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados and Belize -- 266 strong.

The scale of a war, however, does not affect the constitutional requirement for congressional authorization. (Military action can be initiated by "declaring war" or "authorizing" it by resolution.) to the funding fathers, all wars were important. James Madison considered was as "among the greatest national calamities." Madison wrote "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature and not to the executive department." George Mason said that he was "for clogging, rather than facilitating war."

Alexander Hamilton stated that in the scheme of orderly governance certain things were "so delicate and momentous" that to entrust them "to the sole disposal" of the president was unwise. Hamilton spelled it out in the Federalist Papers:

"The president is the commander in chief of the arm and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the Constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature."

It was the authoritarian powers of the British king that the framers did not wish to replicate in establishing the executive branch of the Constitution. War was too important to be left to the whims of one man.

A U.N. Security Council resolution and a resolution from the Caribbean Community and Common Market dealing with Haiti are not the constitutional equivalent of a vote by Congress authorizing the invasion of Haiti by American military forces. Why do we pursue the approval of multinational organizations and ignore the one entity that the Constitution mandates be consulted? Bear in mind, when Haiti is seized by American forces, it is the U.S. Congress that will have to appropriate the money to keep the impoverished nation afloat. No other nation or organization will give them a dime.

But no one seems to care about the constitutional niceties. No member of Congress wants to force the issue. No one is anxious to have his or her fingerprints on the decision.

If all goes well, if but few lives are lost, if we are in and out in a reasonable period of time, then everyone can claim to have been supportive of the effort. Everyone wins. On the contrary, if the mission over time is marred by failure or if we have to fund Haiti as something akin to a vassal province, then everyone can say "I told you so. It never should have happened. It's all Clinton's fault."

On something as dicey as Haiti, it's better to stand up and be counted -- afterwards. That may not constitute a profile in courage, but it sure as hell beats voting on a hot potato right before an election.

~Tom Eagleton is a former U.S. senator from Missouri and a columnist for the Pulitzer Publishing Co.