Will Bush be impeached??

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
Who gave Congress the power to surrender?

It's called money. You might want to ask yourself who authorizes the money being spent to fund the war. Now if the Dems truely believe they were elected on a withdrawal platform, they should start the process of cutting the funds. Anything else (non-binding resolutions, etc.) is pure sophistry on the part of the Democratic controlled Congress.

[chequita guevara]

Well, Bush can veto any bill which withdraws the authorization to use that money, but they can simply refuse to authorize the expenditure of any additional monies. They won't do it though, cuz they're ****ing cowards.

[Berzerker]

Ned, the Framers gave Congress most of the power regarding foreign policy. The Prez can negotiate treaties on behalf of the Senate and he becomes CinC when the military is called into actual service by Congress, but thats about it (notice how the Prez' 2 powers rely on instructions to act from Congress?). Congress runs the military in peacetime and writes laws dealing with commerce, exchange rates, etc and Congress has the power to raise armies and declare war. The Framers were rejecting the notion of monarchs using people as cannon fodder and gave the legislature the power over life and death.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That would be unconstitutional, Ned.

Well, not entirely... I mean a veto is, in essence, ignoring Congress. Perhaps he meant the President can ignore the law, in which case that most likely would be unconstitutional (unless the law he is ignoring is unconstitutional in itself).

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Well, Bush can veto any bill which withdraws the authorization to use that money, but they can simply refuse to authorize the expenditure of any additional monies. They won't do it though, cuz they're ****ing cowards.

Possibly. I think enough Republicans are jumping ship that they may be able to pull of an override, though.

[Zkribbler]

Bush has so much discretionary funding, he can easily get them over there. The vote on the supplemental funding won't come up for months. Will Congress cut off funds necessary for troops in Harm's Way -- no way.

If Bush wants to do this -- and he does -- he can.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Will Congress cut off funds necessary for troops in Harm's Way -- no way.

That's all it boils down to really.

"Candidate X voted against body armor for our brave troops!!!"

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Bush has so much discretionary funding, he can easily get them over there. The vote on the supplemental funding won't come up for months. Will Congress cut off funds necessary for troops in Harm's Way -- no way.

Then will you please tell Kennedy and Murtha to STFU. They annoy me.

[chequita guevara]

Murtha plans to cut off funding.

[Drake Tungsten]

Good for him.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually cutting funding for troops overseas is political hardball of the highest order.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Murtha plans to cut off funding.

Planning is one thing. Execution is another.