Well, I'll be...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Indeed you did. You claimed that Congress couldn't require an end date to operations in Iraq as a condition to providing current funding.

Indeed I did, but that's not what you claimed previously.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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...

I doubt it's ever come to court. And that quote only makes sense if "war" means "declaring war," because it's clear that the President has some power over the military that Congress does not, given that he's CINC.

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.

I don't think the cases are quite equivalent. In one case the American ship is essentially a customs ship, in the other case we troops in a war zone.

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

Exactly, so it doesn't support your interpretation of the "government and regulation" clause.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Indeed I did, but that's not what you claimed previously.

the problem you're going to have with making claims like this is people can always go back and read the thread. From post #57 which was the very first mention of this current branch of our discussion:

[quote]

Originally posted by Oerdin


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

Just give it up, Kuci. I know teenagers like to feel they know everything but you lost this argument and you can't even pretend I originally said something else.

[Kuciwalker]

My post was a response to this:

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.

I never argued that Congress doesn't have the power to put strings on money. Find a quote where I did

[Kuciwalker]

Here's a hint: I was arguing that Congress doesn't have unlimited power to put strings on money.

(And specifically that this was one of the cases where the power is limited.)

[Dinner]

Once again you try to weasel out but I will not let you.

I posted, in post #51, that the election was all about Iraq and that almost 60% of Americans want us out of Iraq and a withdrawal deadline set. You responded in post #53 with

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

and expanded it in post 55 saying:

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.

After this you made a really long and factually incorrect statement that Congress setting a deadline for the withdrawal of US forces was illegal and all Congress could do was cut off funding. I then smacked you down and made you look like a fool because 1) Congress can do a whole lot more then just cut off funding and 2) Congress can make any requirements for funding or remove authorization for the use of force as it so pleases (this is due to there not being a declaration of war and the manner in which the use of force was originally authorized). Those are just well established historical facts and I'm sorry your right wing fantasy of how Congress works doesn't hold up to reality.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

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

Wrong. Congress could have put any restrictions it wanted on the use of nuclear weapons provided the law was duly passed (I.E. signed by Pres or over rid the veto). In fact both FDR and Trumen were intensely afraid that the hugely expensive Manhattan Project would get either canceled or restricted by Congress. It all comes down to money and Congress gets to put all sorts of strings almost where ever it pleases and as long as the law is duly passed (either signed by Pres or the veto over ruled) then the law is binding. Period.

[Kuciwalker]

Wrong. Congress could have put any restrictions it wanted on the use of nuclear weapons provided the law was duly passed (I.E. signed by Pres or over rid the veto).

That's not borne out by the Constitution.

In fact both FDR and Trumen were intensely afraid that the hugely expensive Manhattan Project would get either canceled or restricted by Congress.

Congress refusing to budget money for the Manhattan Project is not the same as Congress passing a law detailing a specific military operation.

Once again you try to weasel out but I will not let you.

Actually this has been my point all along, and it's been obvious to people like Ramo. You just can't read.

After this you made a really long and factually incorrect statement that Congress setting a deadline for the withdrawal of US forces was illegal and all Congress could do was cut off funding. I then smacked you down and made you look like a fool because 1) Congress can do a whole lot more then just cut off funding and 2) Congress can make any requirements for funding or remove authorization for the use of force as it so pleases (this is due to there not being a declaration of war and the manner in which the use of force was originally authorized).

1) Show me where in the Constitution they're given power to command the military. It rather explicitly gives the President the CINC power.

2) Congress's power to put strings on funding is not unlimited.

It's funny that Oerdin hasn't given a single cite for any of his assertions...

[Kuciwalker]

btw, Oerdin, you're way behind in this discussion. Ramo and I are well into the debate about the relative extent of Congressional and Presidential powers over the military...

[Kuciwalker]

And Ramo actually knows something about law. I daresay the only person here parroting pundits is you.

[Kuciwalker]

A trivial demonstration of the limits on Congress's power: a law providing funding to k-12 schools could not be restricted to states with segregated schools.

[Kuciwalker]

Ramo, I just realized that Little isn't relevant, due to Article 1 Section 8: Congress specifically has the power to "make rules concerning captures on land and water." Thus Little doesn't speak to any general power of Congress over the military.

Since Oerdin has trouble picking up on any sublty in arguments:

Congress's relevent enumerated powers:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.

To provide and maintain a navy.

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

The relevent powers of the president:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.

Nowhere does Congress explicitly have the power to command the military; in fact, buy explicitly assigning that power to the president, it is obviously denied to Congress. Congress has the power to allocate money to raise the army, but its operational control is limited.

[Ramo]

I doubt it's ever come to court.

Not exactly this case, but a multitude of similar cases that differ only in fairly arbitrary criteria, but all pertain to Congressional jurisdiction over the armed forces. Even FDR, for all his objections to executive deference, didn't contest a law that restricted the deployment of draftees to the Western hemisphere and the Philippines. The Bush Admin's claims to executive power have been fairly radical...

And that quote only makes sense if "war" means "declaring war," because it's clear that the President has some power over the military that Congress does not, given that he's CINC.

And where, exactly, are those powers spelled out? Youngstown rejects your idea of the exclusive power of the CinC.

I don't think the cases are quite equivalent. In one case the American ship is essentially a customs ship, in the other case we troops in a war zone.

The Atlantic Ocean was a war-zone. It's known as the quasi-war with France (recognized as a genuine war in Bas v. Tingy, i.e. equivalent to there being declaration of war). There were hostilities with French ships. In any case, the basic question here is Congress' jurisdiction over the armed forces. And Little ensured it to be very broad. Incidentally, Bas said much the same thing: Congressional statue dictated that any armed French vessel on the high seas can be attacked (edit: removed the word captured to get to the heart of the matter), but engaging those docked in port, those that are unarmed, and land hostilities were forbidden; and this was upheld by SCOTUS.

Exactly, so it doesn't support your interpretation of the "government and regulation" clause.

That's the clause that makes the most sense.

[Ramo]

Ramo, I just realized that Little isn't relevant, due to Article 1 Section 8: Congress specifically has the power to "make rules concerning captures on land and water." Thus Little doesn't speak to any general power of Congress over the military.

That's a fair point (I'd argue that both clauses are relevant), but the contemporary ruling Bas v. Tingy gets more to the heart of the matter.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
And where, exactly, are those powers spelled out? Youngstown rejects your idea of the exclusive power of the CinC.

That the CINC power doesn't give the president unlimited power to order the military within the United States doesn't speak to the relative powers of the president and Congress. Neither Congress nor the president could have the military arrest speakers of the opposing party, for instance. And I'm not able to tell from what I've read if the military itself was involved in seizing the factories.

Essentially, it's a limited case. As wiki puts it:

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the United States Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress.

That's a very limited restriction. I don't know that the president would be unable to give the same orders in, say, Korea - I bet the president can order the seizure of foreign property on foreign soil in a military campaign without authorization from Congress.

The Atlantic Ocean was a war-zone. It's known as the quasi-war with France (recognized as a genuine war in Bas v. Tingy, i.e. equivalent to there being declaration of war). There were hostilities with French ships. In any case, the basic question here is Congress' jurisdiction over the armed forces. And Little ensured it to be very broad. Incidentally, Bas said much the same thing: Congress said that any armed French vessel on the high seas can be captured, but engaging those docked in port, those that are unarmed, and land hostilities were forbidden; and this was upheld by SCOTUS.

I read the Little decision, and it didn't give a justification for why this was a Congressional power alone, but the answer may be contained in one of the prior appeals. However, Little is easily covered by Congress's specific power to set rules concerning captures on land and water, IMO.

That's the clause that makes the most sense.

See above. Admittedly I did not catch that until I reread the relevant sections of the Constitution.