Reply #34: Gulf of Tonkin was before the War Powers Act.....

[Polemicist]

So none of that stuff now applies. It's been superseded by the War Powers Act.

The solution to the Iraq War problem and Bush's intransigence, lies in exercising Congress' power under the War Powers Act. And it was written to allow Congress to bypass a President that was intransigent about bypassing Congress to fight a war, which is the exact dilemma we face at present. That's why the War Powers Resolution reserves for Congress the power to end war specifically by Concurrent Resolution, in precisely the manner I've outlined.

However, I haven't been able to determine if a concurrent resolution can be filibustered. I know it can't be vetoed. And I know one type of concurrent resolution can't be filibustered, under current Senate rules, and that is a budgetary concurrent resolution. But there are limits on "germane" amendments to budgetary concurrent resolutions and I'm not sure the parliamentary maneuvers necessary to structure this concurrent resolution to avoid filibuster. The white hairs in Congress can figure that out. There likely is a way to accomplish this and avoid both filibuster as well as veto.

It will likely wind up being tested in the Supreme Court. I would think if Bush sued Congress on this bill, that it would be rapidly expedited for a Court hearing. I think Congress stands on firm Constitutional grounds on this issue and that the Administration and it's fringe belief in a "Unitary Executive" will lose. And we need to accomplish the judicial demise of this loony theory to end the NSA abuses and the loss of our precious Habeas Corpus rights. This gets the issue in front of the Supreme Court very quickly. And I believe we will win.