Senator Kennedy stated he is going to propose a bill that won’t allow Bush to send more troops to Iraq without congressional approval in this article. Now, does this mean that as of now, Bush can just send them whenever he wants no matter what anyone says about it?
Does Bush have to wait for Kennedy’s new bill first? How is that going to work, if Bush can, in fact, send them without anyone saying anything, won’t the troops already be on their way before the bill even gets to the floor for a vote?
Because I believe Bush will state on an upcoming interview that he is going to do just that, send them no matter what. I believe he says, “they’re gonna try and stop me, but I’ve made my decision.” If this is in the wrong forum, I apologize.
Congress, I think, can only influence subsequent actions through rescinding the authorization which isn’t about to happen, or by attaching conditions to the use of apropriations.
Now being the commander in chief shouldn’t the president be able to do whatever he wishes with the military unless explicitly disallowed so by congress?
I wonder what the result would be even without the authorization. I remember reading about Teddy Roosevelt, the House wouldn’t approve the money for his fleet. He was trying to show case to the world his “navy” so to speak. When the House refused to appropriate the money he sent the fleet half way around the world anyway and then the House was stuck with the embarassing situation of not approving the money and leaving the navy stranded or approving the money to bring them home. So the House did that.
Barring something outrageous (the Royal Tongan Army lands on Midway, for example), or a conflict into which the UN sends troops and the President honors our UN treaty obligations to supply a contingent, the President is obliged to go to Congress and request a declaration of war or the equivalent (Tonkin Gulf Resolution, the present AUMF) to send forces into battle anywhere. Having once gotten that authorization, he is then free to conduct the war in accord with his own understanding of what is needed – presumably on good advice from military strategists and civilian experts looking at the bigger picture (e.g., Eisenhower sending Marines into Lebanon, in accord with the JCS advice, and guided by Dulles’s view of whether intervening in Lebanon would piss off Turkey at a time when we needed Turkey’s support against the USSR, which was looking longingly at the Middle East).
Naturally, of course, Bush can only use what he’s got – he cannot unilaterally decide to reinstitute the draft in order to give him more troops to send, or buy more B-2’s than the budget bill authorizes. But within those bounds, he’s in charge.
Now, it’s agreed that without any particular directives from Congress, the President can do anything lawful, but are you saying that Congress can’t provide binding direction? For instance is Congress somehow prohibited from passing a law (presumably by overriding a Presidential veto) that says, for example “there shall not be more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq”?
'Cause I don’t see where in the Constitution it says that.
It looks to me like Eisenhower was responding to a call for help from the Lebanese government under a treaty obligation of some sort. I haven’t found a cite yet.
The President, being the Commander in Chief, can order the troops anywhere.
Congress, which allocates funds, can cut the money to pay for those troops.
One of the checks and balances. The President has to have the power to act quickly but Congress acts to represent the will of the people. Mostly.