The legacy of George W Bush and Dick Cheney

[mtnsnake]

Here were two men who would never hesitate to lay down your life for their country.

[niyad]

1. actually, it's your life for their MONEY

[Tellurian]

2. Constitutionalists Bring the FIGHT to Bush $ Cheney..

Experts tell Committee Congress can end Iraq war

In the opinion of the experts testifying today, Congress can institute personnel caps, deny appropriations for additional troops, and even refuse to fund continued deployment of the Armed Services in any region without interfering with the president’s constitutional position as commander in chief.

RAW STORY has acquired advanced copies of testimony from experts David J. Barron of Harvard Law School and Louis Fisher of the Library of Congress. Also testifying will be Walter Dellinger of Duke University School of Law and Robert Turner of University of Virginia Law School.

#
Excerpts from David J. Barron, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School:

Our constitutional tradition shows that measures such as those now being considered concerning military operations in Iraq--whether they place caps on troop levels, restrictions on the introduction of new troops, or establish a date certain by which troops must be redeployed--are clearly constitutional exercises of well-established....

Congress...may clearly end a military conflict by denying the funds to continue it (allowing, of course, as any sensible legislation should, for force to be used during the period of time necessary to effectuate an orderly and safe withdrawal). There is a consensus among scholars on precisely this point.

#
Excerpts from Louis Fisher, specialist in constitutional law at the Library of Congress:

In recent years, advocates of presidential authority have argued that the title “Commander in Chief” empowers the President to initiate military operations against other countries and to continue unless Congress cut off all funds, presumably by mustering a two-thirds majority in each House to overcome an expected presidential veto. Such a scenario means that a President could start and continue a war so long as he had at least one-third plus one in a single chamber of Congress. Nothing in the writings of the framers, the debates at Philadelphia and the ratifying conventions, or the text of the Constitution supports that theory....

The Constitution does not empower the President as Commander in Chief to initiate and continue wars....

Congress has options other than a continuation of funding or a flat cutoff. In 1986, Congress restricted the President’s military role in Central America by stipulating that U.S. personnel “may not provide any training or other service, or otherwise participate directly or indirectly in the provision of any assistance, to the Nicaraguan democratic resistance pursuant to this title within those land areas of Honduras and Costa Rica which are within 20 miles of the border with Nicaragua.” In 1991, when Congress authorized President George H. W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, the authority was explicitly linked to UN Security Council Resolution 678, which was adopted to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Thus, the legislation did not authorize any wider action, such as using U.S. forces to invade and occupy Iraq. In 1993, Congress established a deadline for U.S. troops to leave Somalia. No funds could be used for military action after March 31, 1994, unless the President requested an extension from Congress and received prior legislative authority.


more at link... a ray of hope!



http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Feingold_experts_say_Congress_can_end_0130.html

....These particular words, as metioned above, are calling Bush $ Cheney's bluff:

"The Constitution does not empower the President as Commander in Chief to initiate and continue wars"....


Now, Bush will have to declare himself one way or the other...Does he (think he) possess Dictatorial Powers or Not?