The Senate has passed legislation ordering troops to begin coming home Oct. 1...

[MRT144]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Iraq is criticizing the vote, saying it abandons them and wastes the lives of those that have died.
These are also valid points.

And just so you know, draft is the only means of replenishment of the military.

So you enjoy being held hostage by a lazy country

[Berzerker]

I'm pretty sure the Senate can't override a Presidential veto of a treaty, given that a treaty already needs 2/3's of the Senate to pass.

What if the Prez doesn't want to negotiate a treaty and the Senate wants the treaty negotiated?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Imagine if Bush signed it.

Bush would be too stupid to sign a reasonable bill like this.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I'm pretty sure the Senate can't override a Presidential veto of a treaty, given that a treaty already needs 2/3's of the Senate to pass.

A treaty is not a bill. Veto authority is limited to bills.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I wish there was a chance he'd keep vetoing the bill until the Dems remove the bribes they put in it to get it to pass from it and submit it clean.

As opposed to the bribes to Blackwater, Halliburton, et al in previous war appropriations bills coming from the Republican congress?

[DinoDoc]

What's your point, MtG?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The Senate voted for a deadline and not a "goal?" The problem with that is the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief. Congress has no authority to order troops out or pass laws saying they must be out by a date certain. Congress cannot micro-manage.

Congress can simply refuse to fund specific activities, and only leave funding available for specific activities related to execution of a withdrawal from the theater. Otherwise, the President would have a free pass as long as he was in office, once Congress approved any military action.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What's your point, MtG?

I never heard you complaining about those "bribes."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I never heard you complaining about those "bribes."

What part of my posts led you to believe I make distinctions between so called good and bad pork spending? But since you seem to, perhaps you can explain to me what peanut farmers have to do with funding offensive opperations in Iraq?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MRT144


So you enjoy being held hostage by a lazy country

No. I'm only pointing out that USA is about to join most of the world. Mandatory service or conscription. I'm saying the vast majority of the world has one or the other. If you want to prove me wrong, you'll have to go look.

[Apocalypse]

I am kinda surprised that this isn't on fark yet.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
A treaty is not a bill. Veto authority is limited to bills.

The president still has to sign a treaty. Treaty power is in Article 2.

[Kuciwalker]

Article 2 Section 2:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

That certainly doesn't mean that the Senate has the power to make treaties without the President.

[DaShi]

Doesn't mean that they can't either. Just that the President has restrictions on treaties.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Article 2 Section 2:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

That certainly doesn't mean that the Senate has the power to make treaties without the President.

Any president that refused to sign on to a treaty congress wanted could just simply be impeached, and the new President would sort of get the point.

Since a treaty needs two thirds of the Senate to ever pass, and two thirds are needed to override any veto, any treaty that the senate had the votes to pass would inherently be veto proof.

The President is Commander in Chief of the United States Army and Navy, that is it. He does have the power to commit federal forces as he will, but of course only as long as Congress funds him. If congress does want to end a war, they simply leave it out of the budget, denying the president the ability to pay the troops, and most of the time, if the government can't pay the army or the suppliers, the war comes to an end. Also, such things as the national guard are only under the command of the President as long as they have been handed over to Federal authority. I assume State Governor's retain the ability to withdraw their forces from Federal service, and then the president could not issue those forces any orders, anymore than the President can give an order to a local police officer.

As for this bill, its a political stunt by the Democrats. The President will veto it, simply because not to veto it would undermine what this administration has been about from day one, establishing the primacy of the Executive Branch. And once Bush vetoes it, the Democrats don't have the political gust to simply end paying for the war and forcing Bush's hand.