As a local sports talk radio host here likes to say, “You’re *making * my point!”
Thank you. I will dedicate it to the US soldiers lives lost between now and when the Democrats call for redeployment/defunding of the Iraq war in 2008. Ok?
No. There have been a number of cases in which senators have been wheeled into the Senate on gurneys to cast deciding votes, however. Senator Engle in 1964 cast the deciding vote on the Voting Rights Act while suffering from brain cancer: he couldn’t speak, but indicated his support by pointing to his eye.
harveyc, I can only assume that you mean well, but let’s look at reality here. Shutting off funding for the war isn’t something that Reid and Pelosi can just go and do, there has to be a vote. They might not win. If they do win, Bush will veto the bill and 2/3 of Congress will have to vote to override the veto. That’s just not going to happen.
In politics, you only get so many bites in the apple. That’s just the way things work. So if they press for an immediate vote on ending the war by February 1, they will lose. It is a fact that you cannot refute. So they very well may be hedging their bets that if they do not hold a vote right away, more Republicans will begin to oppose the war, and the Democratic leadership might be successful in a vote that is held later this year, or maybe next year.
So, harvey, let’s say you’re Speaker of the House. Do you want to hold a vote now and lose, handing Bush a victory, or try to build more opposition to the war and vote later?
He’s conscious but still on a breathing tube, I think, and so he’s not able to speak. When they take it out I presume he would be able to, since they say he is aware and everything.
As posted earlier, he isn’t required to speak to cast a vote, just be conscious and not incompetant.
For anyone interested, I started another related thread in GQ to discuss some of the factual questions brought up in this thread.
:rolleyes: Dedicate it to GW Bush, as he’s the only one with the power to bring the troops home in that time frame…he’s also ultimately to blame for ALL the deaths, before and after. I know you are immune to reason and logic, so this was just a matter of going through the motions on my part…I know that nothing is going to get you to use that thing on your shoulders and actually listen to the various arguements listed and try and comprehend what is being told to you.
-XT
Nice thread. I will follow it with great interest and watch to see if if Prof. Kaytal is quoted (among many others) and if this comes up (1968 I believe) …
“George McGovern and Oregon Republican Senator Mark Hatfield eventually got a bill to the floor that would have cut off funding for the war (Vietnam). It failed but it did show significant progress as over 30 senators voted for it.”
From reading comments in this and other threads, I have not provided satisfactory backup for my positions. There only a few points to my arguments for getting our soldiers home from Iraq as soon as possible. Fundamental to this goal, and with this President, is Congressional defunding of the war. Maybe I took this for granted so I would like to clarify and expound on this first:
1 - 1974 - Congress defunded the Vietnam war by about half. The only comment to this was we didn’t have troops on the ground so Congress could do it - no backup.
2 - 1968 - Sen. George McGovern and Senator Mark Hatfield got a bill to the floor of the Senate that would have cut off funding for the Vietnam war. It was voted on but did not pass. 30 senators voted for it.
3 - 1993 - The Congress limited the use of funding in Somalia for operations of U.S. military personnel only until March 31, 1994, permitting expenditure of funds for the mission thereafter only if the President sought and Congress provided specific authorization.
4 - 1998 - Defense Authorization Bill. The Congress prohibited funding for Bosnia “after June 30, 1998, unless the President, not later than May 15, 1998, and after consultation with the bipartisan leadership of the two Houses of Congress, transmits to Congress a certification …
5 - Last Sunday on ‘Face the Nation.’ Ms. Pelosi was asked if Congress would cut off money for troops already in Iraq. She said “We won’t do that.” It is interesting that a) she was asked that question about defunding and b) she answered “We won’t do that.” instead of “We can’t do that.”
6 - Common sense - What is the purpose of Congress reviewing and voting on appropriation bills for the war in Iraq?
There are numerous other examples and it is obvious Congress can defund a war, particularly, since there hasn’t been any examples produced yet showing they can’t. I would be interested in seeing examples where Congress was barred from defunding a war or military conflict.
One more time.
Of course the House CAN vote to cut off funds for the war, as long as they get enough votes.
That doesn’t mean such a vote would be wise or popular. And it doesn’t mean that those votes actually exist. If such a vote were held today it would be resoundingly defeated, it would be voted against even by most opponents of the war.
Kennedy is trying to introduce a bill that would require Congressional authorization for the president to increase troop levels in Iraq. He makes an interesting argument in that he claims that all the issues raised in the AUMF as reasons for going to war have either been met (toppling Saddam) or proven moot (WMDs). I haven’t gone to do a point-by-point comparison, so maybe he’s right (although we do now have al-Qaeda in Iraq, even if we didn’t before the war). Still, I think the the constitution is clear about the Congress providing the authorization for and the having the ability to fund wars, but not the authority to micromanage the tactics or even the stratgy used by the Commander in Chief.
I’m happy to see the Congress either defund the war or rescind the AUMF, but I can’t get behind the idea of Congress telling the president exactly how many troops he’s allowed to use in any given military conflict as long as the AUMF is still in effect. And, as I pointed out earlier, with al-Qaeda clearly operationg in Iraq at this point, the president could claim authority under the AUMF enacted right after 9/11/01 to continue his efforts in Iraq-- that AUMF is extremely vague, stating:
i don’t know about cutting off funds as the OP asks at the end. I do know that I am tired of the Joe Bidens helplessly wringing their hands and saying “what can Congress do?” in a pitiful voice.
Dammit, Joe, the majority in the last election said “Get the US out.” You members of Congress get the big bucks and the perks that go with high office because you are supposed to figure out how to do things. Now you and your fellow Democrats get busy and find a way and stop whining.
It’s not up to us, the electorate, to figure out how. We decide what we want you to do and you are supposed to figure out how to do it.
Get on with it.
Why is it not the electorates problem as well? After all we (en masse) re-elected Bush as well…making the problems facing the new Congress that much harder to fix. I don’t think there is a magic wand type solution that Congress can simply wave and make it all go away wrt Iraq. The answer is probably going to lie in the next Presidential election. Until then, Congress can merely chip away at things and try and do the best it can to contain the situation.
Seriously, give them some time before jumping their shit on Iraq. If they haven’t accomplished anything at all by this time next year, THEN maybe start piling on. Its only been a week after all…
-XT
It is our problem but as a group we can’t come up with a solution. We lack the authority to take action over any part of the actual performance of the task. Our job was to tell the officials what we want. If those officials won’t or can’t do it, then we get another bite at the apple in 2008. We cannot do the detailed solution when we only get an input once every two years.
I didn’t say that Biden should have an immediate solution. I do say that he shouldn’t get away with saying that he doesn’t see a way for Congress to do anything after, as you say, such a short time. I’m not jumping on Biden for not solving the problem already. I am jumping on him, and others, for saying that he doesn’t see a way for Congress to do anything.
You and your fellow legislators find a way, Joe.
We’re going to have to do more. The Dems didn’t win all that much, there wasn’t that much available to be won. Perhaps if the totality of the House and Senate were up for election, they might have, but such is not.
What the Dems won most of all is the power to investigate, to subpoena, to force the Bushiviks to put up or stonewall. This is very important, I don’t want to underestimate its importance, but its not enough by itself. I had hoped it might be, I had hoped the Bushiviks were not as blindly stubborn as not to be able to read the handwriting, but they are, and that’s that.
What it will do is permit the facts to be publicly aired. The lies, first and foremost. Then the wave of ideological teeny-boppers they sent to mold a broken nation in something Grover Norquist would admire. (They tried to do the same thing in the dissolved Soviet Union, my, didn’t *that * turn out ducky!) The whole sorry, sordid mess.
We will have to do more, we the people. When the people lead, the leaders will follow, we carry their nuts in our collective pocket, and we have to reach in and squeeze! Nothing short of a nationwide protest movement is going to get it, a massive wave of peasants marching on Castle Bushenstein with pitchforks and torches, nothing short of raising the spectre of impeachment from a chimera to a solid possibility.
I loathe public demonstrations. I can’t stand the speeches, more than anything else. But it surely looks like that’s what’s coming, and it sucks, sucks, sucks! I am furious with the men who made this necessary, and my gas mask is thirty years out of date. But there are no elections to be had, no further civil means to our ends are available. We either step up, or step off.
Maybe that’s what it will take, although you all will have to go without me. I can’t walk that far.
However, just two months after the election our elected officials shouldn’t have thown up their hands and said that there’s nothing Congress can do. That’s bullshit. The way I read the Constitution, the president is the officer who executes the will of Congress. Let the Congress, or at least the House, tell the executive what its will is. I realize that with Lieberman following McCain around like a house pet, the Senate will be a problem. That’s the Connecticut voters doing. They had their chance and apparently they voted based on their own perceived welfare rather than that of the US as a whole.
Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid should call on the President to begin redeploying our troops asap, like they did in 2006, and tell him that Congress will be voting on a bill to defund the war in Iraq asap. If we can’t win in Iraq, then it is their obligation to do this to save US soldier lives.
How is waiting and hoping for more Republicans to change their views a solution when soldiers are dying. What if there still isn’t enough support and McCain gets elected (opinion v. opinion)? The could result in the loss of 1,000’s of additional US soldiers lives.
If the bill fails, how does Bush win? Is he going to say “see Congress doesn’t want us to leave Iraq.” This will already be evident if Congress continues to vote for and enact appropriation bills for the war.
It is time for Congress to go on record, based on the November elections, and do their job and get our soldiers home.
Isn’t that kinda like pissing on their grave, before they’re even buried in it?
It certainly isn’t what I would consider a way of honoring them.
Get new glasses and have another go at reading it.
The Judicial, Executive and Legislative Branches are co-equal, each supreme in their own bailiwick and subordinate when acting in the others’ areas.
There’s no question that Congress has extraordinary powers, but Congress cannot substitute itself for the president. The president must execute the laws Congress passes, yes, but he must also execute the duties the Constitution assigns to him and him alone. For example, the Congress can pass a wide array of federal law; the President can pardon anyone from any offense committed under it and Congress cannot restrict that power in any meaningful way.
We aren’t dealing with a pardon of an individual and that’s just a red herring. No the congress cannot act to overturn a pardon in the case of an individual, however the president can’t make what that person did legal nor overturn the verdict. He can pardon.
Yes the president is commander in chief and decides how the military is to conduct armed conflicts. However the president commands in accord with the rules made by congress and makes war, except in cases of direct attack, only when congress permits. The president appoints executive officers but most of the offices are those established by congress which can abolish them and congress must approve the appointments in important positions.
Foreign policy is conducted by the president, however the foreign policy officials must be approved by congress along with all treaties.
You have chosen one of only two exclusive powers reserved to the president and not a crucial one as regards the national welfare at that.
We’ll get you there. Damned if I’m gonna be the oldest guy there!