Sens. Byrd and Clinton propose different approach to ending the war

[LilShieste]

This is a spin-off thread from “Dems push Iraq funding bill with withdrawal timetable; Bush threatens veto”. Rather than hijack that thread (since that particular bill is still being batted around), I figured I would start this one.

In the above thread, John Mace had made the following comment:

@John Mace

It’s going to be very, very difficult for Congress to end this war unless they, sit down for this… end the freakin’ war. If they have enough votes to override a veto of a funding bill, they should have enough votes to override a veto of a bill that would unAuthorize the Use of Military Force. I think Americans would get behind that. End the war, then cut off the funds. Don’t cut off funds while the war is still authorized.

Today, CNN published an article saying:

From the linked article
Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, and Robert Byrd of West Virginia proposed a measure to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing force in Iraq. Under the bill, Bush would be required in October to seek Congress’ blessing to continue operations in Iraq.

(underlining mine)

I strongly agree with the comment John Mace made, and would definitely support a bill like this. What types of problems could be brought against it, though? (Since it wouldn’t have the specter of de-funding our troops hovering over it.)
LilShieste

[Malodorous]

Well, the obvious problem is the same as with the current dispute over the funding dispute. The bill won’t get the votes needed to override a veto.

[LilShieste]

@Malodorous

Well, the obvious problem is the same as with the current dispute over the funding dispute. The bill won’t get the votes needed to override a veto.

I don’t think that’s necessarily a given, though. One of the main arguments against the current bill circles around the “danger to our troops”, if they don’t get the proper funding.

This bill essentially accomplishes the same thing, just in a more direct manner. People won’t be able to hide under the “Why do you hate our troops” blanket.
LilShieste

[Merijeek]

@LilShieste

This bill essentially accomplishes the same thing, just in a more direct manner. People won’t be able to hide under the “Why do you hate our troops” blanket.

Sure, but instead it’ll be under the “Do you want America to surrender” tarp.

-Joe

[Malodorous]

@LilShieste

I don’t think that’s necessarily a given, though. One of the main arguments against the current bill circles around the “danger to our troops”, if they don’t get the proper funding.

The current bill didn’t “defund the troops”, it funded them but required they be withdrawn along a certain timeline. It is not passing that bill that threatened to prevent funds for the war. As far as I can tell, if the veto had been overridden, the war would’ve been fully funded.

[LilShieste]

@Merijeek

Sure, but instead it’ll be under the “Do you want America to surrender” tarp.

Yeah, but there are fewer people holding up that tarp.

@Malodorous

The current bill didn’t “defund the troops”, it funded them but required they be withdrawn along a certain timeline. It is not passing that bill that threatened to prevent funds for the war. As far as I can tell, if the veto had been overridden, the war would’ve been fully funded.

I’m not arguing otherwise. However, this was an argument that was repeatedly trotted out against the original bill.

My main point is: I would expect a bill like this to receive the backing of more people than the previous bill. Of course, I don’t believe that everyone will hop on board - but it might be just enough to override a veto.
LilShieste

[Malodorous]

@LilShieste

However, this was an argument that was repeatedly trotted out against the original bill.

It was an argument against attaching the timeline to the funding bill in the first place. It wasn’t an argument against voting to override the veto since, as I said earlier, the veto blocked funding.

Attaching the timeline to the funding bill was an attempt to both give it the appearence of a compromise (Congress gives Bush the money he wants, and in return ask for him to sign the timeline) and to give the timeline legislation teeth (since the one thing congress can belivably threaten to do without a 2/3rds majority is block funding for the war). A bill that wasn’t linked to funding would have less chance of getting taken seriously and getting through, not less.

My main point is: I would expect a bill like this to receive the backing of more people than the previous bill.

I still don’t understand why you think this? Because it wouldn’t be linked to funding? or because its repeal of the AUMF rather then a timeline?

I’ve already explained why I think the former is more likely to get blocked. If the latter, I think that a repeal of AUMF is less likely to override a veto then the current legislation as well. It gives Bush less room to manuever in his running of the war (which is why Mace suggested it in the first place) and so will be even less palitable to Republicans.

[BrainGlutton]

I predict Bush, or one of his lawyers, will come up with a tortured separation-of-powers argument to the effect that the bill is unconstitutional because, while Congress’ consent is needed to start a war, only the CinC has the power to end it.

Why not? W already called the funding-with-withdrawal-timetable bill unconstitutional for equally ludicrous reasons.

The scary thing is that I’m not entirely certain the SCOTUS, given its current composition, would laugh the whole argument out of court.

[Frank]

@BrainGlutton

The scary thing is that I’m not entirely certain the SCOTUS, given its current composition, would laugh the whole argument out of court.

They should [laugh it out of court], as the Constitution allows Congress to pass no military appropriations bill that last longer than two years.

Article I, Section 8:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

The clear implication is that Congress may fund or not fund a war, as it chooses. The President, of course, may choose to continue to prosecute the war, if he chooses, with no money.

I agree, the power of ending a war is unadressed, but I don’t see how any Justice could accept that Congress could be forced to provide funding. Budgeting is inarguably in the realm of Congress, and not the President.

[LilShieste]

@Malodorous

It was an argument against attaching the timeline to the funding bill in the first place. It wasn’t an argument against voting to override the veto since, as I said earlier, the veto blocked funding.

I see what you’re saying now.

@Malodorous

Attaching the timeline to the funding bill was an attempt to both give it the appearence of a compromise (Congress gives Bush the money he wants, and in return ask for him to sign the timeline) and to give the timeline legislation teeth (since the one thing congress can belivably threaten to do without a 2/3rds majority is block funding for the war). A bill that wasn’t linked to funding would have less chance of getting taken seriously and getting through, not less.

I’m still not ready to concede this last point, though. I think that there was too much psychologial luggage involved with the originally proposed bill. That is, the thought of the President continuing to wage this war after vetoing the bill, while trying to pass the “no funding” buck on to the democrats.

@Malodorous

I still don’t understand why you think this? Because it wouldn’t be linked to funding? or because its repeal of the AUMF rather then a timeline?

Primarily because it wouldn’t be linked to funding, but also for the second reason because it implicitly sets a timeline. I understand what the democrats were trying to accomplish with using their original approach; I just don’t think it went over as well as expected.

@Malodorous

I’ve already explained why I think the former is more likely to get blocked. If the latter, I think that a repeal of AUMF is less likely to override a veto then the current legislation as well. It gives Bush less room to manuever in his running of the war (which is why Mace suggested it in the first place) and so will be even less palitable to Republicans.

While there is part of me that thinks you’re right (in that such a bill may be even less palatable to republicans), there is also part of me that thinks the opposite may be true, since the majority of americans do want to see our troops withdrawn now or very soon.

I certainly admit that this may just be wishful thinking, but I’m not convinced yet that this second bill doesn’t stand a chance.
LilShieste