Well, I'll be...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Says you. Congress has defacto been doing other wise for several centuries now.

If Congress attempted to, say, allocate funding only to public schools that said prayer at the start of the day I'm certain the Supreme Court would have a word

btw:

sev·er·al
–adjective
1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind: several ways of doing it.
2. respective; individual: They went their several ways.
3. separate; different: several occasions.
4. single; particular.
5. Law. binding two or more persons who may be sued separately on a common obligation.

[Ramo]

L v. B doesn't seem to be relevant to the question of relative jursidiction (CINC vs. power to declare war), and neither does Y v. S. Nor does Hamdan; as mentioned above, that deals with the regulation of the military, not deployment.

How, exactly, does deployment not fall under the umbrella of "government and regulation" of the military? This is an arbitrary distinction that you're making. Again, I'm not referring to the power to declare war, but the specific part of the Constitution I cited which confers jurisdiction to Congress in imposing statutory guidelines on how the military is governed.

The 1943 Congress would not have been able to vote against Operation Overlord, or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Again, take another look at Little. The President's war powers are described by statute. Congress specifically limited the CinC's ability to seize French vessels, and it was upheld by SCOTUS.

[Drake Tungsten]

How, exactly, does deployment not fall under the umbrella of "government and regulation" of the military?

How does it, exactly?

[Ramo]

gov·ern·ment /ˈgʌvərnmənt, ‑ərmənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[guhv-ern-muhnt, ‑er-muhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
6. direction; control; management; rule: the government of one's conduct.

reg·u·la·tion /ˌrɛgyəˈleɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reg-yuh-ley-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, esp. to regulate conduct.

[Kuciwalker]

How, exactly, does deployment not fall under the umbrella of "government and regulation" of the military? This is an arbitrary distinction that you're making.

Government and regulation = things like the UCMJ. Obviously this category is distinct from actual command, else the President as CINC would be redundant.

Again, take another look at Little. The President's war powers are described by statute. Congress specifically limited the CinC's ability to seize French vessels, and it was upheld by SCOTUS.

1. I would argue that Little falls closer to "government and regulation" (given that it referred to essentially customs regulations) than "command."

2. I'd also argue that once hostilities have started, Congress' power to legislate deployment of forces becomes more limited by the CINC power.

[Kuciwalker]

Ramo: exactly. "Government and regulation" refers to, essentially, the code of conduct of the military while carrying out its operations, not the operations themselves.

Note that the only case you cited that uses that clause, Hamdan, refers to the UCMJ.

[Ramo]

CinC isn't redundant. Read the Jackson concurrence in Youngstown. The President can act, but not in defiance of statute.

And hostilities had started. It's an embargo where vessels and cargo benefiting France are seized. Acceptable hostilities against France were prescribed to minute detail (a much narrower order than the legislation that the House apssed). I don't see how Congress should have jurisdiction over military forces in prosecuting an embargo, but not in peacekeeping in a civil war.

[Ramo]

And your "code of conduct" theory doesn't hold up in light of Little.

[Dinner]

Only a stupid, stupid **** who was totally childishly ignorant would be idiotic enough to argue that Congress doesn't have the power to put strings on money. Virtually all of the money Congress appropriated in its entire modern history has had strings attached. That's practically why Congress exists; to attach conditions to money.

Congress has the power to appropriate funds for various purposes. There is no law or stricture of any kind binding it to appropriate those funds separate from one another. If such a power existed, then the Congressional power to pass a budget wouldn't exist, because, golly, all of those funds would be tied together with conditions, right?

To name a few examples:

* Federal highways subsidies are linked to safety and speed requirements
* Federal police and safety dollars are linked to various requirements, like the requirement to comply with the Megan's List laws.
* Federal subsidies for 09/11 security were, if you recall, tied to vague provisions that required they be spent on security
* Federal funding for the 1973 budget included riders that stated that the funding could not be used for combat operations in Vietnam. While court decisions did not later punish the President for breaking this law, the decision was not based on the President's actions, but merely on the lack of standing of a Congressional representative to file the suit.


There have been provisions in law for PROCESS with respect to spending to allow the President to discourage riders, logrolling, etc. in federal spending bills, and the wikipedia entry on line-item veto covers some of this - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_vetothe - but they are just a little teenie bit constitutionally charged in the absence of an actual constitutional amendment...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Only a stupid, stupid **** who was totally childishly ignorant would be idiotic enough to argue that Congress doesn't have the power to put strings on money.

It's a good thing I didn't argue that, then.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
And your "code of conduct" theory doesn't hold up in light of Little.

Little wasn't under that clause.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
CinC isn't redundant. Read the Jackson concurrence in Youngstown. The President can act, but not in defiance of statute.

And hostilities had started. It's an embargo where vessels and cargo benefiting France are seized. Acceptable hostilities against France were prescribed to minute detail (a much narrower order than the legislation that the House apssed). I don't see how Congress should have jurisdiction over military forces in prosecuting an embargo, but not in peacekeeping in a civil war.

The same way that Congress can detail the rules for the embargo, but not the actual operations themselves. Congress didn't pass a law to start the attack on Fallujah, nor could they nor should they. Nor can they pass a law to prevent it within an already-assigned mission. Congress does not have the power to legislate disposition of forces.

[Kuciwalker]

Ramo: what power over the military doesn't Congress have, in your opinion?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It's a good thing I didn't argue that, then.

Indeed you did. You claimed that Congress couldn't require an end date to operations in Iraq as a condition to providing current funding. As such you display your ignorance.

That is EXACTLY how Congress forced the withdrawal from Vietnam. By placing dates, conditions, and requirements (collectively referred to as strings) on the money. You have ignorantly claimed that it is unconstitutional for Congress to do that when in fact that's exactly what Congress exists to do.

[Ramo]

Ramo: what power over the military doesn't Congress have, in your opinion?

I can't think of a case that upheld the President's jurisdiction over the armed forces in defiance of statute (that isn't unconstitutional for other reasons). Can you? So until a court says otherwise, as Marshall said in Talbot v. Seeman:

The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress, the Acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides...

The same way that Congress can detail the rules for the embargo, but not the actual operations themselves.

What Congress did was the equivalent of saying that insurgents going to Baghdad can be attacked, but insurgents leaving Baghdad can travel freely. Micromanagement from Congress doesn't get any more extreme than that, including the order to redeploy that the House passed.

Little wasn't under that clause.

I don't think Little specified any clause...