Well, I'll be...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Fixed to reflect reality.

As novice as you are to reality, I question your assumptionof th reality that Dems in power as of Nov. represent a mandate for withdrawl from Iraq.

Last I heard there was no nation wide referendmum on the ballot and more tot he point the nearest thing (exit polls) showed dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq was the third most important item, behind Repug corruption and, Repug profligate spending.

Even were one to say Iraq war dissatisfaction was a compelling reason for Dems it by no means is an advocacy (or a mandate by any stretch) of withdrawl from Iraq merely more competant handling of the war. (like using the correct amount of troops no?)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The War Powers Resolution, which binds the President to seek Congressional approval within 60 days of initiating hostilities. Every President since Nixon has held it as unconstitutional, and it has never been tested in court.

Problem is, of course, that Congress has the power to declare war (not the executive branch), so it can be argued that initating hostilities without asking Congress is violative of the Constitution. Of course that gets into questions of what constitutes a 'war' and all that fun stuff.

[Kuciwalker]

And Congress is given the power to declare war, not make it, and all that. As I said, the courts would probably refuse to rule either way.

And in this case it doesn't really matter since Bush had the authorization to enter Iraq.

[Kuciwalker]

You know, I'm half-flattered and half-irritated that all the right-wing pundits have decided to agree with me.

[Drake Tungsten]

We're glad to have someone of your stature on our side, Kuci.

[Dinner]

BTW I recall someone claimed that the election wasn't about Iraq so I will post her polls which say the election was indeed about Iraq.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/02/iraq_polling/

59% of the American population is now saying they want their Congressman to do more to get the US out of Iraq and would like a withdrawl deadline set.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


As novice as you are to reality, I question your assumptionof th reality that Dems in power as of Nov. represent a mandate for withdrawl from Iraq.

Looks like YOU are the novice to reality. Continue on with your delusions that Americans support this war if you must, I guess.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
59% of the American population is now saying they want their Congressman to do more to get the US out of Iraq and would like a withdrawl deadline set.

Well if Congress wants to do that, they have one option open to them.

[Ramo]

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States [...]

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

The rule in question here is redeployment (incidentally, the House bill is binding). So yes, this does pass Constitutional muster. There's plent of precedent to back up the general idea (Little v. Barreme, Youngstown v. Sawyer, Hamdan, etc.).

That said, a court decision could go easily against Congress, and defunding (as mandated by the recently introduced Feingold-Reid legislation) doesn't need to get past a veto.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: the first clause, I've already admitted that Congress has the power to cut off funding. It doesn't have the power to, through legislation, give orders to the military.

Re: the second clause, that only deals with the general conduct of the military, not its particular deployment.

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.

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

[Seeker]

If the funding were cut off, would the Bu****es be cruel enough to keep the army there anyway for a few months without any real funding just to get some 'support our troops' BS headlines?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Re: the first clause, I've already admitted that Congress has the power to cut off funding. It doesn't have the power to, through legislation, give orders to the military.

You are wrong in so far as you are ignoring that Congress can legally place any strings it so pleases on that money.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually it can't.

[Dinner]

Says you. Congress has defacto been doing other wise for several centuries now.

[DinoDoc]

It would be nice if certain people, actually made even a half assed attempt at backing up the arguement he's attempting to make.