They say one can tell a person’s character by the company he keeps.

Perhaps then it should come as no surprise to see President Bush cozy up to general-turned-self-appointed “President” Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, who recently held a referendum to keep him in office for another five years (as opposed to holding free elections) and is now hard at work single-handedly altering his constitution to even further expand his powers, granting himself the power appoint military leaders to oversee (and overturn) elected authorities, all ostensibly in the name of “promoting democracy across the land.”

How does this compare to Mr. Bush? Consider Mr. Bush’s rather open musings about possibly “consulting” Congress as to the wisdom of attacking Iraq as opposed to seeking their direct authorization, in outright defiance of Congress’ unique ability to declare war upon other nations (a power given exclusively to Congress by the authors of the Constitution for very good reasons), not to mention his team of lawyers currently wrangling over legal chicanery in a weak attempt to sidestep the whole messy affair of congressional approval to begin with – all of course in the name of peace and democracy at home and abroad.

One of Mr. Bush’s key defenses is in the ambiguity of the sole power of Congress to declare war. After all, this isn’t the first time in history that the commander in chief has felt it necessary to go to war at the drop of a hat. Consider LBJ’s “Gulf of Tonkin” incident, a fabricated attack on a U.S. warship that LBJ used as a pretense to escalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam with little consultation on the part of Congress.

Such a move later spurred the War Powers Act of 1973, which specifically requires the president to consult with the leaders of Congress within 48 hours of committing troops into conflict as well as to receive a declaration of war from Congress (or an explicit authorization to continue action for another 60 days) or else pull troops out within 60 days – no ifs, ands, or buts.

Nowhere in the War Powers Act is the president given carte blanche simply to make war as he or she sees fit. Yet this is clearly the attitude that Mr. Bush has put forth that somehow, as the commander in chief, he is not obligated to answer to Congress (and by such, the people) or the trifling technical details of the Constitution.

Consider the tactics that Mr. Bush’s legal team have already come up with: They’ve attempted to use the post-9/11 resolutions authorizing “the use of any and all force necessary to track down those responsible for the attacks” (despite the fact that Iraq has yet to be linked to the 9/11 attacks other than by highly questionable circumstantial evidence), the 1991 authorization given three Congresses ago to his father, Bush the 41st (which theoretically should have expired when hostilities ended, or else Japan, Germany, Italy and England had better watch their own backs), not to mention vague allusions to the president’s role as commander in chief of the armed forces.

In fact, aside from such weak arguments, it has largely been the strategy of the administration to obfuscate the legality of their proposed “one-man war” with Iraq by raising hysterics over the unspecified (and unsubstantiated) threat that Iraq poses to the United States, despite the fact that charges such as supporting terrorism largely apply to nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as well.

Truly, if the case for war is so airtight, Mr. Bush would be well served to do a better job of articulating his case to the American public while having faith that Congress will do its job.

Yet even more dismaying is the lack of congressional opposition to this charade: Republicans that normally froth at the mouth about issues like “the rule of law” and the “strict text of the Constitution” (at least when it’s an impeachment hearing) are now some of the most ardent hawks, while stray sheep such as Dick Armey, R-Texas, (who expressed concern over the wisdom of an unprovoked attack), are being whipped into line by the triumvirate of Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

Not to be out-cowed, of course, are the Democrats, who meekly sit through the circus, afraid to be called “unpatriotic” for questioning Herr Bush in a time of national emergency, especially in an election year.

Yet what the Democrats fail to realize is that beyond the threat of terror, we face an even greater crisis – the threat of a constitutional crisis brought about by an administration who is outright flouting the checks and balances set forth in the Constitution in favor of patent demagoguery and scaremongering.

To those who routinely assert that the Constitution is “not a suicide pact,” perhaps they would be well-served to remember that it is an inviolate constitution alone (and the rule of law that goes with it) that separates our nation from a despotic farce like Pakistan.

Steve Skutnik

is a graduate student in nuclear physics from Ames.