quote:CONGRESS decides whether or not to fund a war effort. CONGRESS decides how big or small the military is. CONGRESS decides when this nation is and isn't at war. CONGRESS decides when we bring troops home, and when we send them away, over the long term.
Of these things you say Congress decides, it can only invoke the power of the purse - and only in a preventative fashion by refusing to appropriate money for Iraqi operations - without Bush's consent. They can't revoke the authorization for the use of force. They can't order the president to bring the troops home.
Essentially, all they can do is cut off the money - likely to the entire federal government, because if Bush chooses to contest them, he won't sign appropriation bills that don't contain funds for Iraqi operations. That would be political suicide and they know it.
Last time I read the Constitution, the Congress had the power to declare war, the President's only job is to lead the army during that war. The President also has the power to make treaties with the consent of the Congress, but that doesn't mean that the Congress can't do the same without him.
Congress tried to use the War Powers Resolution to get troops out of Somalia in 94, regardless of the fact that it's often blamed on Clinton, Congress threatened to cut off appropriations for that operation.
The resolution that authorized the use of force on Iraq tied the use of force to exhausting all diplomatic actions beforehand, which Bush never did, by his own admission. Does that invalidate, or give them a chance to revoke the authorization?
Do you dispute that Congress decides how big or small the military is?
Do you dispute that they declare war, authorize the use of force, and ratify treaties?
Congress has options, was my point. And your useless smugness aside, the point remains.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Last time I read the Constitution, the Congress had the power to declare war, the President's only job is to lead the army during that war.
True. Whatever passes for a declaration of was has been passed. It has no expiration. Therefore, additional congressional action is needed to undo it. Therefore therefore, they can't make pull the military out without either Bush's consent or 60 Republican representatives and 16 Republican senators.
quote:The President also has the power to make treaties with the consent of the Congress, but that doesn't mean that the Congress can't do the same without him.
No, they can't. This is strictly forbidden, in fact.
quote:Congress tried to use the War Powers Resolution to get troops out of Somalia in 94, regardless of the fact that it's often blamed on Clinton, Congress threatened to cut off appropriations for that operation.
Which is irrelevant since the President is using the military in Iraq w/ Congressional authorization that cannot be undone without either Bush's consent or 60 Republican representatives and 16 Republican senators.
quote:The resolution that authorized the use of force on Iraq tied the use of force to exhausting all diplomatic actions beforehand, which Bush never did, by his own admission. Does that invalidate, or give them a chance to revoke the authorization?
That determination was, I believe, left to the discretion of the President. Regardless, they can either try to challenge in court - which I would bet thousands of dollars would be unsuccesful - or revoke the authorization - which, as stated above, they can't do without Republican cooperation.
quote:Do you dispute that Congress decides how big or small the military is?
Since you quoted the part where I spoke of Congress having the power to control military approriations, you know the answer to that question.
quote:Do you dispute that they declare war, authorize the use of force, and ratify treaties?
Did I dispute that? No. So why are you asking me if I do. The point is that it's irrelvant to the question of what Democrats in Congress can do to remove the troops from Iraq absent Republican cooperation.
quote:Congress has options, was my point. And your useless smugness aside, the point remains.
Congress has one option to force the President out of Iraq, and that option is political suicide.
Could you please point out what was smug about the post of mine that you quoted above?
Perhaps you could also simply outline a specific course of action that the Democrats in Congress can take, without either Bush's consent or 60 Republican representatives and 16 Republican senators, which would result in the troops leaving Iraq and that you think they could survive politically. Since your point remains that Congress has options, tell us just one.
Now I'm being smug, because you've basically ignored what I said and tried to take me to task for correcting your factual errors.
In short, the only way the Democrats in "CONGRESS [can] decide when we bring troops home" from Iraq is by cutting off those troops' salaries and supplies. The other options require Republican congress members to agree or the President to agree.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, they can't. This is strictly forbidden, in fact.
People other than the President have worked as special envoys and diplomats to work out treaties with foreign governments since at least 1794. How is it forbidden?
I wouldn't put it past Democrats to threaten Bush. Will they leave troops stranded in Iraq? Of course not, but as soon as they threaten to cut off funding, the media war begins on whose fault it is, Bush's for not bringing them home, or the Democrats for cutting off funding to a very, very unpopular war.
I honestly don't think Democrats are going to have that hard a time securing Republican support for revoking authorization for the war. Some Republicans are already calling for just such an action, a phased withdrawel over the next two years. I keep hearing everyone say that Democratic wins in the Congress will have zero effect on the war, other than oversight, and I don't buy that either. Bush is going to face incredible pressure to get out of the war from BOTH sides of the aisle, and the more the pressure intensifies, the more he'll be forced to cave. This isn't the Imperial Presidency that he tried to make stick in the last few years. He's lost almost all support, he's incredibly unpopular, and now he's lose Congressional support, to say nothing of the fact that no one is beholden to him, as much of the Republican Congress was elected in SPITE of him, not because of him.
It's been two days since the midterms, and already he's changed his Secretary of Defense, something he's said for YEARS he would not do, and as recently as last week flatly rejected. And he's called for new ideas on how to prosecute the war. Times are changing.
Besides, I don't have to enumerate their options, you did it for me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, they can't. This is strictly forbidden, in fact.
People other than the President have worked as special envoys and diplomats to work out treaties with foreign governments since at least 1794. How is it forbidden?
Dag is right, the Constitution grants the President all diplomatic authority. Congress has to ratify treaties, but anybody who claims to be a US diplomat has to be credentialed by the presidential administration. If they're not, they violate the law.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:People other than the President have worked as special envoys and diplomats to work out treaties with foreign governments since at least 1794. How is it forbidden?
If the president doesn't sign a treaty, it's not a treaty. It's that simple. Unlike a law, which can be passed without presidential signature, a treaty cannot.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:[cut a historical section that says originally the Senate and the President were to collaborate more on foreign policy--in the footnotes it says Washington tried but the Senate balked] Negotiation, a Presidential Monopoly.—Actually, the negotiation of treaties had long since been taken over by the President; the Senate’s role in relation to treaties is today essentially legislative in character.264 “He alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation, the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it,” declared Justice Sutherland for the Court in 1936.265 The Senate must, moreover, content itself with such information as the President chooses to furnish it.
quote:People other than the President have worked as special envoys and diplomats to work out treaties with foreign governments since at least 1794. How is it forbidden?
If the president doesn't sign a treaty, it's not a treaty. It's that simple. Unlike a law, which can be passed without presidential signature, a treaty cannot.
So, can the Congress make a treaty and then submit it to the President for approval?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Logan Act is the law I cited above that prohibits private diplomacy. Surprisingly, despite being on the books for 200 years, no one has ever been convicted with it, according to a law professor.Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this context they are. I doubt they would actually be tried, but they are not credentialed diplomats.
The Constitution gives the President the power to "make treaties" with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not vice-versa.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been two days since the midterms, and already he's changed his Secretary of Defense, something he's said for YEARS he would not do, and as recently as last week flatly rejected. And he's called for new ideas on how to prosecute the war. Times are changing.
Yeah but rumsfeld resigned out off his own volition right. Oh and who is the new sercretary of defense and what's his position in general.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
the points of that movie are really valid though. Candidates rely too much on their money to become known. a candidate should not be rich to win. clearly the money connects to the votes. And candidates also spend too much time thanking and talking about themsleves and not enough about the issues
Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
thats because the average voter doesnt understand or really care about the real issues. Smokescreens like family life and morals and physical appearance are what swings the average voter.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: In fact, this belief is one of the main reasons my minor is Spanish, because I'm gonna end up moving to Peru.
Sure, fleeing the country to avoid the problem.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't blame him, I'm going to Switzerland. This country isn't in exactly the greatest shape and it's probably not going to get any better.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
