Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

July 27, 1973 - Image 4

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1973-07-27

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Summer Daily
Summer Edition of
Edited and managed by students at the
University of Michigan
Friday, July 27, 1973 News Phone: 764-0552

War Powers Act unconstitutional,
impractical, and absolutely absurd

Alternative school:
A racist facade
BY VOTING EFFECTIVE approval Wednesday for an
"alternative" school for "disruptive" students, the
Board of Education has authorized the city's first reform
school. No other term can describe such a reactionary and
punitive proposal.
There is one significant difference between the facil-
ity, first proposed by Trustee Cecil Warner, and a reform
school. While juveniles can be imprisoned in correctional
institutions for offenses which are not punishable in
adults, such confinement must at least be preceded by a
court hearing. The alternative school, on the other hand,
offers students no semblance of a judicial process and
proposes to punish them for a vague collection of assum-
adly anti-social acts. The repressive implications of such
a procedure are obvious.
Like juvenile correction enthusiasts, Warner claims
the students singled out for placement in the alternative
school will receive remedial and vocational services, as
well as adequate separate but equal education.
The example provided by hundreds of reform schools
across the nation should indicate the absurdity of this
contention. Further, the fact that the local schools have
recently begun cutting allocations for counsellors, social
workers and special education teachers shows just how
helpful an experience the new school is likely to provide
for the city's high school troublemakers.
Much more sinister than the school's educational as-
pects, however, are the unmistakeably racist overtones it
carries. Warner protests against such charges, saying
there are "lots of white kids in the schools that have not
been socialized." Apparently he is willing to extend al-
ternative school admissions to include a poor white con-
tingent as well. Such broadmindedness cannot camouflage
the obvious motivation of the proposal.
In the past few years the rebellion of black high
school and junior high school students against racism in
the public schools has not met with any degree of com-
prehension from the vast majority of school administra-
tors, school board members and city residents.
Many white parents cling fearfully to the fictional
good old days when social and political issues were absent
from the schools.
Naturally, the school board has responded to the
mood of its most vocal constituents, Ann Arbor's version
of the Pontiac anti-busing reactionaries. The school for
disruptive students is only part of a wider movement to
divide the city's pupils into separate buildings by race,
class, and educational expectancy.
We can only hope that the city's parents will wake
up and realize what the separatist trend will do to every
student's education.
Racism, and militaristic discipline will never stop re-
bellion or racial mistrust in our schools.
Pentagon lies again
secret bombing raids over Cambodia and the subse-
quent falsification of statistics about those raids only con-
firms long-held suspicions of Defense Department lying.
The numbers released to the Senate after the near-
heroic investigation by Sen. Harold Hughes (D-Iowa) are
still suspect, but at least they do admit that the bombing
took place. They show 3630 secret missions:between March
1969 and May 1, 1970 when American troops invaded.
According to former Defense Secretary Melvin Laird,
now counselor to the President, the orders for the secrecy
dame from the National Security Council.
THE RATIONALE for the cloak and dagger tactics, ac-
cording to Laird, was that had the raids been publicly
acknowledged the then-leader of Cambodia Norodom Si-
hanouk would have been forced to demand that they be
The reasoning ignores the fact, that the Cambodians
certainly knew they were being bombed and their homes
were being destroyed. And the communists, whether in
China, Russia, or Vietnam certainly knew that their allies
were being raided.
The only secrecy maintained, then, was in the United
States and that tragedy is as great as the bombing itself.

LAST WEEK on July 20, the Sen-
ate debated and passed by a
vote of 72-18 the so-called War
Powers Act to govern the use of
Armed Forces during the absence
of a declaration of war.
When the House had passed a
somewhat modified form of the
bill, President Nixon said that he
would veto such a bill. Much has
been said in support of the b ill1
which is now in a Senate-House
conference commitee, and will soon
come to a final vote.
The following is a speech during
the Senate debate by Sen. Sam Er-
vin (D-N.C.) on July 20 detailing
his reasons for opposing the War
Powers Act:
DESPITE the popularity of the
so-called war powers bill, I cannot
in good conscience support it. The
reasons for my opposition are ex-
tremely simple. The Constitution
clearly makes a distinction between
two kinds of wars.

that the President of the United
States, as the Commander in Chief
of the Army and Navy of the
United States, cannot exercise his
constitutional power, yea, his con-
stitutional duty, to protect this
country against invasion for more
than 30 days without the consent
of the Congress.
We hear much nowadays about
the separation of powers. Here is a
power and a duty which the Con-
stitution clearly imposes upon the
President of the United States, to
use the Armed Forces to protect
this country against invasion. And
here is a bill which says express-
ly that the President of the United
States cannot perform his consti-
tutional duty and cannot exercise
his constitutional power to protect
this country against invasion for
more than 30 days without the af-
firmative consent of Congress.
In my opinion, in spite of the
good purposes of the bill and the

(This) bill says expressly that the President
of the United States cannot perform his con-
stitutional duty and cannot exercise his con-
stitutional power.
:r:r ry r :::"+ar": ",": "';:+ ',,'"-y-.,.k:< . x :<y ':r' : % it :;it"iii .:c"r . r o.x.:. +.r,;

Sen. Ervin
One of the fighting men s a i d,
The ex-sheriff said, "I am in
One of the other men gave him
a hefty punch on the jaw and
knocked him down. The ex-sheriff
jumped up and said, "I am out of
THIS MEASURE is an absurdity.
It says that when the United States
is invaded, Armed Forces of the
United Statesrmust get out of the
fight against an invader at the end
of 30 days if the Congress d o es
not take affirmative action within
that time to authorize the President
to continue to employ the Armed
Forces to resist the invasion. The
bill is not only unconstitutional,
but is also impractical of oper-
ation. In short, it an absurdity.
Under it, the President must con-

The 11th clause of section 8 of the
first article gives Congress t h e
power to declare war. That clearly
refers to any offensive war in
which the United States may en-
gage. This is made manifest by
section 4 of article IV which says:
The United States shall guaran-
tee to every State in this Union
a Republican Form of Govern-
rent, and shall protect each of
them against invasion;
Now the question occurs, By
what official is that power to be
exercised? It is clearly to be exer-
cised by the President, because
section 2 of article II of the Con-
stitution says:
The President shall be Com-
mander in Chief of the Army and
the Navy of the United States . . .
THIS BILL provides in section5

lofty motives of those who support
it, I think the bill is an absurdity
as a practical matter.
WE USED to have a lot of 'ight-
ing in my old hometown around the
court square. We had an ex-sher-

This bill is not only unconstitutional, but
is also impractical. In short, it is an absurdity.
r / - . -
iff by the name of Alex Duckworth, vert Old Glory into a white flag
who drove by there in his buggy within 30 days if Congress does not
one day when two men were in a expressly authorize him-to perform
fight. the duty the Constitution imposes
The ex-sheriff asked, "Whose on him to protect the Na ion
fight is this?" against invasion.

WHT 464066eaAwr -TMOSE 19q 0 o5.0OMe64&

Distributed by sAngeleSimeS SYNDICATE

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan