Congress' "War" Powers
This article from Reuters only spells out what is already obvious: Congress has the power to stop the war.
But its powers are limited by the Constitution, and it can only use the powers vested in it in order to do so. Congress can defund the war, because it's vested with appropriation power (i.e. the power of the purse). It can refuse to confirm generals to fight the war, because it's given confirmation powers.
But the management of the war is a province restricted to the Commander-in-Chief (i.e. the President). Congress has no business setting benchmarks (or strategy, for that matter). Nor can it retroactively "revoke" the authorization it offered President Bush to fight a war.
Congress' powers to "stop" the war are, in other words, limited to its constitutional prerogatives. Should be simple.
Interesting, though, that some in Congress would be interested. Who, exactly, in Congress would like bragging rights that they, singlehandedly, made us lose the war?
But its powers are limited by the Constitution, and it can only use the powers vested in it in order to do so. Congress can defund the war, because it's vested with appropriation power (i.e. the power of the purse). It can refuse to confirm generals to fight the war, because it's given confirmation powers.
But the management of the war is a province restricted to the Commander-in-Chief (i.e. the President). Congress has no business setting benchmarks (or strategy, for that matter). Nor can it retroactively "revoke" the authorization it offered President Bush to fight a war.
Congress' powers to "stop" the war are, in other words, limited to its constitutional prerogatives. Should be simple.
Interesting, though, that some in Congress would be interested. Who, exactly, in Congress would like bragging rights that they, singlehandedly, made us lose the war?
posted by LadybugUSA at 4:36 PM
2 Comments:
But they're Democrats, Carol. And the Constitution means what the Democrats need it to mean.
To clarify,
It is a notion in the popular culture of the United States to call the President the Commander in Chief which abbreviates his office and militarizes what is a civilian executive office. the President of the United States cannot give any several private citizen a lawful order.
We have often seen this but the correct title for the President is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.
In modern times American politicians will do no such thing as withhold funding to military forces in the field though that is the politic thing to do.
For the Democrats to do that would be to give political fodder to the opposition to use against them if some further disaster take place down the road in the form of another terror attack against human lives in America. The war in iraq belongs to the Republican Congress that was in the majority when it was authorized. It belongs to President George W Bush who sought it from the day the twin Towers fell. All wars end some in victory and some in defeat either way We understand that the outcome is easily recognized by those who can see clearly. Wars cannot be fought forever in the hope of positive outcomes republics grow weary in such matters.
We, Ourselves are curious Carol, in your own words could you tell Us what your measure of victory is? What exactly would signal the American victory in Iraq so that We, Ourselves, Collectively can understand when this event takes place and We can Thus rejoice?
Qu'ul cuda praedex nihil!
Post a Comment
<< Home