Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Richardson's call to de-authorize the war requires a supermajority. What about Hillary's?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 05:39 PM
Original message
Richardson's call to de-authorize the war requires a supermajority. What about Hillary's?
Edited on Sat May-05-07 05:40 PM by ProSense

Hillary Clinton's De-Authorization: War Without End?

by horizonr, Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:03:08 PM EST

<...>

Hillary Clinton just released a statement that makes it very clear that she has no intention to push the Senate -- or lead the country -- to get out of Iraq anytime soon. This is a Mack-truck-wide opening -- especially for Barack Obama. Both he and Edwards should use this and exploit it to the hilt.

The statement is at http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?i...

Today, Senator Byrd announced on the Senate floor our intention to introduce legislation which proposes October 11, 2007 -- the five-year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution. As Senator Byrd pointed out, the October 11, 2002 authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.

Earlier this week, President Bush vetoed legislation reflecting the will of Congress and the American people that would have provided needed funding for our troops while also changing course in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home.

I believe that this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have a full national debate so the people can be heard. I supported the Byrd amendment in 2002 which would have limited the original authorization to a year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of the authorization is overdue. This bill would require the president to do just that.

The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, and the Congress has passed legislation that requires change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me in supporting this effort
to require a new authorization resolution for these new times.

If Clinton believes "it is time...to end this war as soon as possible"...

Why do we need to wait 5 months before we "review" the Iraq authorization?

Why do we need to wait 5 months before having "a full national debate so the people can be heard"? Haven't we already had a national debate? Weren't the people already heard in November 2006?

<...>

There is a reason why the new sign-up feature on Clinton's Web site -- "DEAUTHORIZE THE WAR" in giant capital letters, followed by an invitation to "Join Hillary in her call to bring an end to the war by cosponsoring her resolution to deauthorize the war" (emphasis mine) -- requires visitors to sign up right then and there, with no link to the statement itself:

Hillary Clinton is NOT moving to "deauthorize the war."

Look at the statement. Clinton proposes:

an "expiration date" for "the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq"

"reconsideration of the terms and conditions of the authorization" (of the use of force in Iraq)

"a new authorization resolution" (of the use of force in Iraq)

This is both a set-up and an excuse for Clinton to vote in favor of a funding-only resolution that sets no timetable for troop withdrawal.

And it is not what Bill Richardson has in mind when he says, on his own Web site, that Congress must "De-Authorize the War." On Tuesday, Richardson "called on Congress...to immediately pass a resolution, under the War Powers Act, that would de-authorize the Iraq War and provide a rapid timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces." (emphasis mine).

link


All three conditions are part of Clinton's bill. So if passed, Congress would have to reauthorize with no timetable and no cutting funds.

Even as Richardson one-ups Clinton with his proposal, he gives the impression that this is a simple majority vote, when in fact it has to be a supermajority in both houses. Wanted: 16 Republican Senators to de-authorized the war! If 16 Repubs stepped up to the plate and the measure is passed, the Supreme Court would likely get involved.

Even if there were a prohibition in the Constitution against so-called congressional "micromanagement" of a war -- and there's not -- this wouldn't be that. There would be no congressional officials here overseeing the President's discretionary responsibilities; no requirement that the President get approval of one or both Houses before taking certain actions. There would, instead, simply be limitations on a war imposed by statutes passed with the President's signature or by supermajorities of both Houses of Congress over the President's veto.

Just as the McCain Amendment prohibits the President from using cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment against Al Qaeda prisoners; just as numerous other statutes and treaties place limitations on how the President can conduct war or other conflicts (e.g., the torture statute; the War Crimes Act; the War Powers Resolution; FISA; the Habeas Act; the UCMJ (upheld in part in Hamdan, over the President's objections that it would impinge on his ability to defeat the enemy); the Boland Amendments; a bunch of statutes at the tail-end of the Vietnam War prohibiting the use of funds for the use of armed forces in particular nations, such as Cambodia); just as numerous other statutes have authorized hostilities only for certain purposes and on certain conditions, thus imposing implicit limitations (e.g., the statute upheld in Little v. Barreme; the 1993 Defense authorization provision that funds could be obligated in Somalia beyond March of 1994 only "to protect American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, and noncombat personnel to advise the United Nations commander in Somalia"; etc.); -- and odds are that Senator Biden voted for the vast majority of these statutory limitations on the Commander-in-Chief . . .

. . . so, too, the hypothetical statute here would prohibit him from using more than a specified number of troops in Iraq, and/or require that the troops be used only for particular purposes and only for a specified period of time.

The issue is a complex one. Arguments are, indeed, often made for disabling Congress from limiting the Commander-in-Chief's discretion. And one can certainly imagine the President and the Vice President making such arguments. But Democratic critics in Congress? Does it make any sense for them to disclaim some of Congress's most important powers for checking the Executive, when there is a rich history of such statutory limitations and where there is almost no judicial authority questioning Congress's power?

Ask yourself this: Imagine a hypothetical situation in which an armed conflict has gone disasterously awry, resulting in a devastating and spiraling civil war in a major Middle Eastern nation and profound harms to both U.S. troops and our nation's long-term foreign interests. Over 70% of the U.S. public concludes that the President's proposal to escalate the conflict will only make the disaster worse, and is for that reason a terrible mistake. Over two-thirds of each House of Congress -- supermajorities that include numerous members of the President's own party -- are willing to vote to forbid him from taking such a fateful step.

link


Congress Can Forbid the President from Escalating the Iraq War without Renewed Authorization

Even if the President does not submit his plan for congressional approval, Congress is constitutionally empowered to require him to do so.

As Commander in Chief, the Presidents role is to prosecute the war that Congress has authorized. The President may not go beyond this authorization.

This understanding of the Presidents power as Commander in Chief is plain enough from the text of the Constitution itself. It has also been the consistent interpretation of the Courts. Chief Justice John Marshall set forth this interpretation in a series of cases arising from the naval war with France. Most notably, in Little v. Barreme, Chief Justice Marshall held that the Presidents war powers are defined by statute and may not exceed statutory limits.

In the naval war with France, Congress had authorized the U.S. navy to intercept vessels bound to, but not from, French ports. In Little a U.S. navy ship, acting pursuant to a presidential order to intercept ships bound to or from French ports, intercepted a commercial vessel suspected of coming from a French port. The Supreme Court ruled the action illegal because it went beyond the military force authorized by statute.

The Supreme Court has continued to adhere to this view of the war power. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (the famous Steel Seizure case), the Supreme Court struck down President Trumans order that the nations steel mills continue operating in order to keep the troops in the Korean War armed. Justice Jacksons famous concurring opinion (which the Supreme Court has since held to set forth the proper view of presidential power) emphasized that the Constitution does not set forth exclusive power, but overlapping or shared power. Where Congress and the President share power, as in the area of war power, the President is bound to comply with the statutes that Congress enacts.

Most recently, the Supreme Court has applied Justice Jacksons framework to resolve challenges to President Bushs assertions of commander-in-chief power. In both Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court rejected the Presidents assertion of unilateral authority to conduct military operations (in those cases dealing specifically with the detention and treatment of enemy combatants), holding instead that the President must comply with applicable statutory limits as well as applicable international law.

The Supreme Court has been clear and unambiguous. When Congress, acting in the vast areas of overlapping power, tells the President no, the President must comply. Thus, Congress may limit the scope of the present Iraq War by either of two mechanisms. First, it may directly define limits on the scope of that warand forbid the President from exceeding these limitssuch as by imposing a ceiling on the number of troops assigned to that conflict. Second, it may achieve the same objective by enacting appropriations riders that limit the use of appropriated funds. Indeed, the reason that the Constitution limits military appropriations to two years is to prevent Congress from abdicating its responsibility to oversee ongoing military engagements.

link


War Powers Resolution

Congress needs to set a deadline for withdrawal and cut funding to end the war

More on Congress limiting and cutting funds for war


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hillary needs veto override, she cuts back troops to minor training level as in 136 other countries-
Edited on Sat May-05-07 06:01 PM by papau
but Bush will take to Supreme Court if override wins and if new minor low number of troops is all that is authorized - and who knows what the USSC will do as to war powers.

Even the funding cut off will be taken to USSC if passed over veto, and will then the USSC say Congress can only end the war through impeachment as the Commander in Chief may spend whatever to "defend" us, with or without congressional authorization? - This was the Reagan argument against claims his violation of the Boland amendment in the 80's was treason - and who knows maybe Reagan will be found by the USSC not to have committed treason - and we have been living in an elected dictatorship all these years, with the dictator/President needing only to cry "defense of the US" to take away any right or rule of law. I know the media supported Reagan on this in the 80's - and never raised a cry of "trason".

Impeachment seems to be the only way, as I suspect fund cut-offs will not work with this USSC - - so it is impeachment, or as Hillary says, elect a new president like Hillary that says they well immediately end the war after election (in Hillary and Obama's case "end the war" means leaving troops in Iraq for training and force protection - I do not recall the position of the others - but it amusing to see folks pretend that Hillary and Obama have different positions on future actions for Iraq, when these folks are mirror images of each other with only very minor differences in positions.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. Wow, thank you for pulling these together
Edited on Sat May-05-07 06:07 PM by karynnj
All of these proposals are in reality, very complicated. Each seems to oversold by its proponents. I definately agree with you that it will be very difficult to find 16 Republicans to sign on any time soon - and we likely need 17, because they may be easier to get than Leiberman.

I think that Biden, Hagel and Levin already tried to get a blll that would in one setp de-authorize and re-authorize in a more constrained fashion the war. Earlier in committee, Kerry spoke in mid January of doing that where the reauthorization would match the Kerry/Feingold prescibed actions. The Biden/Hagel/Levin plan gave Bush more latitude than that and it failed to get cloture.

I think that many Senators would have problems if Hillary literally means de-authorize it, then in a second bill authorize it. They wouldn't trust us to pass the second part, for good reason. :) If I understand it this bill de-authorizes the war in October. I still don't understand exactly what they are proposing.

I suspect that this is a bill directed at Edwards - so she can point out she voted for the Byrd amendment and he didn't. It should be noted that Biden and Dodd also voted for the Byrd amendment.

Dodd (and Kerry and Harkin) also voted for the Durbin amendment that would have explicity limited the reason to imminent thread from WMD instead of the vaguer IWR definition.

None of these provisions would likely have stopped Bush - look at the signing statement on the IWR.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. ?? - The bill would be one bill - ending IWR 2002 and starting new IWR in 2007 - but I agree
Edited on Sat May-05-07 06:04 PM by papau
whatever you see proposed as legislation is a 67 vote problem in the Senate - so House Impeachment is the only way to get his attention - and there we need only 50% of the vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I thought it was 2 bills
Edited on Sat May-05-07 06:22 PM by karynnj
because it seems they want to pass a bill that causes the current authorization to end in October. So, was Bryd introducing the need for a bill to de-authorise and re-authorize simultaneously - with a goal this be done in October? If it's one bill, it's not clear how this differs from Biden/Hagel/Levin which failed earlier this year.

To convict Bush/Cheney in the Senate after the House impeaches requires 67 votes.

Form the Constitution:
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6--"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.h...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. True as to conviction in the Senate - but my first Goal was to get Bush's attention. As to
Edited on Sat May-05-07 06:53 PM by papau
Biden/Hagel/Levin - that was the Jan 2007 resolution expressing the thoughts of the Senate as to prior resolution called the IWR. I'm not sure that a resolution, while good enough to get us into war, and a law in 2002 (Public law 107-243),is strong enough legally to get us out - but then perhaps nothing is.

Biden/Hagel/Levin resolution at the time seemed to be a rather timid approach, but perhaps timid was needed at the time as Dems take time and effort and small steps to develop a spine these days. And perhaps a second resolution would have done the trick.

Hillary's law does indeed sound like a repeat of Biden/Hagel/Levin.

But House impeachment is majority vote - and is the only thing we can accomplish these days until the next election in 08.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Right and with Clinton, you could then say he was impeached
though there are far worse things than being impeached you can already say with Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. her aides later related what she REALLY meant...
Edited on Sat May-05-07 07:22 PM by leftchick

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/washington/04cong.htm...

<snip>

Talking to reporters after her floor speech in a mostly empty Senate chamber, Mrs. Clinton indicated that her view was that rescinding the original vote would mean that troops would be out as of October. They have no authority to continue, she said. That is the point.

Later, however, her aides said Mrs. Clinton was not seeking a total withdrawal of troops from Iraq, or a quick pullout that could put troops at risk. They said she had called for a phased pullout that would leave a reduced American force to pursue terrorist cells in Iraq, support the Kurds and conduct other missions a position she continued to support, her aides said.

<snip>

So her pro-war, keep the troops in Iraq policy has not changed at all? How is this any different than the neocons dreams of permanent bases?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElizabethDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Hillary supports a phased withdrawal with no permanent bases or permanent occupation
there would be a temporary residual force. You can see what she's had to say about it here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=3529
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #7
26. "temporary residual force"
In other words, HRC favors continuing the war only on a smaller scale with no timetable or actual figure as to the "residual force" (75,000 "non-combat" troops?)...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElizabethDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. She hasn't given a specific number
she just said "a vastly reduced residual force" that would stay only if necessary: "the bottom line for me is that we will begin redeploying our troops as soon as I am President, and we will do so in as expeditious a manner as possible. We will survey the situation to determine whether there are any remaining vital security interests by 2009 . . ."

She has made it clear that she wants nothing permanent and that she will end the war. I expect that she will give more details over this in the months to come. Obama and others have also said that they would have a residual force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. End the war, when? 2009, 2013, or 2017?
Obama and HRC have the same position on the war today but Edwards wants to end the war. He will take all the troops out except for the small number needed to protect the embassy, which we have in every country. There are other candidates who favor ending the war as well.

HRC is being as vague as possible on Iraq. "Vast reduced residual force" is a telling example. What exactly does that mean? She also talks about "determining" if there are "vital security interests"--after the blank check for her being in the WHite House for four years is signed. She should tell us before the election what exactly she wants and when she will end the war.

Sure, she does not want anything permanent. How "temporary" is is "temporary", though?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElizabethDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I think it's too soon to tell
We have no idea what things will look like in 2009 when the next president takes office. I'm sure she'll elaborate over the course of the campaign - it's still very early yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. i wonder if maybe the aides were wrong
It seems odd she would say something that definitive and then have it changed 180 degree by her aides. If anyone else said it, it would be called a very quick flip/flop/flip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. What did she actually say? - Chris Mathews had made up stuff - but that is his problem - he has been
told a few times on air to check the Obama and Clinton positions and note that they are the same - and each time he looks surprised.

The second time he looked surprised, I looked surprised at the TV because I had not realize how much of his schtick is an act/a con job. I also noted that CNN has finally dropped their assertion she every said anything contrary to her current position re residual force only and no permament base.

Hillary has always rejected the 14 permanent bases built by Bush - although I expect our troops left in country for the training mission, being of very limited number, would be stuck on one of those bases so as to limit the need for excessive force protection troops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. It's a NYT quote - not Matthews
They are by no means perfect, but there quotes are usually accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. NYT "Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War" notes 2002 vote for IWR -nothing else
Edited on Sat May-05-07 08:45 PM by papau



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/washington/04cong.htm...

May 4, 2007
Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War
By CARL HULSE and PATRICK HEALY

WASHINGTON, May 3 Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war.

Mrs. Clintons proposal brings her full circle on Iraq she supported the war measure five years ago and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House.

It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible, Mrs. Clinton said as she joined Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in calling for a vote to end the authority as of Oct. 11, the fifth anniversary of the original vote.<snip>

The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve.<snip>

She supported the war early on, but she has turned into a staunch critic of the administrations performance on Iraq. She has been saying that she granted Mr. Bush the authority to go to war based on intelligence reports at the time, but that the reports have since proved wrong.<snip>

Mrs. Clinton pointedly noted that she voted in 2002 to put a one-year limit on Mr. Bushs war authority, an effort led by Mr. Byrd that failed. Mr. Edwards had opposed that limit.<snip>

Later, however, her aides said Mrs. Clinton was not seeking a total withdrawal of troops from Iraq, or a quick pullout that could put troops at risk. They said she had called for a phased pullout that would leave a reduced American force to pursue terrorist cells in Iraq, support the Kurds and conduct other missions a position she continued to support, her aides said.<snip>

If the White House and Iraqis failed to meet certain benchmarks for progress, according to the proposed legislation, Mr. Bush would need to seek new authority from the Senate to continue in Iraq, which would render the 2002 authority moot, her aides said.<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #10
27. Yes, Obama and HRC have essentially the same position on Iraq today
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. she is never definitive when it comes to the ME
Edited on Sat May-05-07 09:56 PM by leftchick
she uses weasel words. Look at this quote from last month.....

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_War_+_P...

No permanent bases, but continuing residual force in Iraq

we do not plan a permanent occupation or permanent bases, but there may be a continuing mission to protect America's vital interests, and to support an Iraqi government that we hope to be an ally going forward, assuming they are acting responsibly. So, the bottom line for me is that we will begin re-deploying our troops as soon as I am President, and we will do so in as expeditious a manner as possible, as few troops as necessary with no permanent occupation, and no permanent bases.
Source: Virtual Town Hall on Iraq, sponsored by MoveOn.org Apr 10, 2007


A "continuing mission"? Does that mean the US palace/ Embassy with 5000 employees, support troops and contractors? No permanent bases? Where will the residual (75,000 or so) troops be staying? In a freaking hotel? We didn't build those four monstrous US bases in the desert for nothing. Weasel words if you ask me. :(



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
19. NO ONE is saying a quick withdrawal---all want a phased withdrawal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I am not referring to "quick withdrawal"
Edited on Sun May-06-07 08:39 AM by leftchick
I am talking about what Hillary and many others have said in regard to leaving a awful lot of troops and contractors in Iraq to "protect our interests". It sounds to me like we are there for the long haul...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=191160


<snip>

3. "Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach": This is a loophole of loopholes that could add up to almost anything as, in a pinch, all sorts of Sunni oppositional forces could be labeled "al-Qaeda."

An Institute for Policy Studies analysis suggests that the "protection forces" and advisors alone could add up to 40,000-60,000 troops. None of this, of course, includes U.S. Navy or Air Force units stationed outside Iraq but engaged in actions in, or support for actions in, that country.

Another way of thinking about the Democratic withdrawal proposals (to be vetoed this week by the President) is that they represent a program to remove only U.S. "combat brigades," adding up to perhaps half of all U.S. forces, with a giant al-Qaeda loophole for their return. None of this would deal with the heavily armed and fortified U.S. permanent bases in Iraq or the air war that would almost certainly escalate if only part of the American expeditionary forces were withdrawn (and the rest potentially left more vulnerable).

No less strikingly, in an era in which the "privatizing" of state functions is the rage, the enormous mercenary forces of private "security" companies like Blackwater USA, now fighting a shadow war alongside U.S. troops in Iraq, would be untouched. On this point, Jeremy Scahill, author of the bestseller, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, has much to say in a recent post at Tomdispatch.com. He writes: "Even if the President didn't veto their legislation, the Democrats' plan does almost nothing to address the second largest force in Iraq -- and it's not the British military. It's the estimated 126,000 private military contractors' who will stay put there as long as Congress continues funding the war."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
36. It is NO different
than the neocons. Not one bit surprised.

Thanks for your info here leftchick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
14. photo-op BS that will get vetoed in a heartbeat. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polemicist Donating Member (299 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
15. A simple majority vote of Congress passes a revocation...
Edited on Sun May-06-07 12:28 AM by Polemicist
of the AUF from 2002. There are several reasons why a "super majority" isn't needed and from what I see, you have chosen to ignore all of these. Which makes me wonder if this post is really more about being "anti-Hillary" than it is about being "anti-war". And I'm not a Hillary supporter.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is the existing statutory law governing Presidential and Congressional War Powers. It was passed by a "super majority" of Congress in 1973, over Richard Nixon's veto. It is the law of the land at present, and would have to be rescinded by Congress or declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court for this to change.

The War Powers Resolution, stipulated that Presidents must go to Congress for Authorization for Military Force, or a Declaration of War, within 60 days of hostilities. President Bush has already tacitly agreed with the Statutory Law per the War Powers Resolution, as he requested Congressional approval before beginning his Iraq War, in October 2002.

Declarations of War and Authorizations to use Military Force, are Joint Resolutions of Congress. They have been passed with the House and Senate meeting in joint session. Therefore they are immune to a filibuster and are subject to only a majority vote of the jointly assembled Congress for passage. And they are not submitted for Presidential concurrence or veto, under the power of Congress to declare war, based upon Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, which vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war.

So what Senator Clinton and Senator Byrd are doing, will work and will bypass President Bush completely. If the old AUF is revoked, Congress can pass a new AUF with different parameters and a different military mission. The only role in this for the President, is to carry out the war instructions of Congress, in his Constitutional role as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

The Congress gives the President his war time "marching orders". The President must carry out the wishes of The Congress. People are confused about the powers of the different branches of the government. Bush isn't "Commander in Chief" of the entire nation for war purposes. He only commands the Armed Forces. The "Commander in Chief" of the Nation in war matters, is solely the United States Congress. Our founding fathers in their wisdom, took the power to wage war away from the king (president) and placed it with the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. An Excellent Summary, Sir
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polemicist Donating Member (299 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Thank you, but I need to clear up a few points...
Edited on Sun May-06-07 06:46 AM by Polemicist
If the AUF revocation is introduced as a standard resolution, it would be subject to filibuster and veto by the President, as the original post in this thread stated. And I used the wrong terminology in my post above and need to substitute "concurrent resolution" for joint resolution. For a joint resolution still has to go through committee, both Houses of Congress, as is potentially subject to a filibuster in the Senate and a Presidential veto as well. A concurrent resolution is different.

A concurrent resolution normally isn't ever submitted to the President for signature. So it isn't subject to veto. And under the current rules of the Senate, a budgetary concurrent resolution can't be filibustered. Now here's where it gets fun.

I can see a way that the 2002 Iraq AUF could be negated, without being revoked. And done using a simple concurrent resolution. And to be sure that it's immune to filibuster, done as part of the budgeting process for the military and war budget for 2008 as a budgetary concurrent resolution. I think Democratic Congress intends to stop the Supplemental funding process for the Iraq/Afghanistan/war on terror that Republicans utilized that kept this funding out of the standard budget, in order to project lower deficits. I believe the Democratic Congress intends to include war funding in the standard budget due October 1, 2007, for FY 2008. That will help us here.

There is a back door way to end the war. Congress has to invoke Section 5(c) of the War Power Resolution of 1973. This clause says....

c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

In this concurrent resolution, Congress simply has to review the goals of the 2002 AUF and declare that mission completed. And with the 2002 AUF completed, invoke clause 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, requiring the President to either withdraw our troops in 60 days, or request a new AUF with "specific statutory authorization" for the current "post war occupation/security mission" in Iraq.

From that point, the Democratic Congress is "driving the car", as regards the mission in Iraq. It will no longer be the President conducting operations authorized in 2002. That mission is completed. He will have to seek new authority, and that mission will be written by the new Congress.

That's my plan. It's not subject to filibuster, nor is it subject to Presidential veto. And I think it might just wipe the smirk right off of chimpy's face. All they could do is challenge it in court. And I believe Congress would have a very strong Constitutional case. Heck going to court with this is better than endless Bush controlled war.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. The IWR is specific statutory authorization under the War Powers Act
Edited on Sun May-06-07 08:49 AM by Hart2008
Everyone needs to read the text of the IWR. Here is the meat of the IWR:

3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
1. reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
2. acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
1. SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
2. APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."

Usually wars end with a peace treaty. A better argument is to issue a resolution that we are no longer at war with the government of Iraq, e.g., that the new government of Iraq poses no threat to the U.S. and has complied with all U.N. resolutions, and the previous IWR is MOOT. (In fact it is our puppet regime which we supporting a civil war.) THEN, inform the President that he is in violation of the war powers act for using U.S. troops to intervene is a civil war and demand withdraw of U.S. troops FORTHWITH.

In the end, it won't matter. Bush is determined to thumb his nose at the Congress and people. The best options are defunding and impeachment. Following the veto, any further filibustering in the Senate will backfire on Repubs. They can't accuse Dems of not supporting the troops if they are filibustering the money. They are caught in the box on this.

Bush, like the Emperor Jones, is determined to stay until the end. Impeachment it must be.

So let us cut to the chase and start the impeachments. Executive privilege doesn't work in impeachment hearings. We start with Gonzo. Cheney is next, and does not get replaced by appointment.
Last is junior Shrub.

To paraphrase Jefferson in the modern age, the tree of liberty is watered with the conviction of tyrants.


http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polemicist Donating Member (299 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. Yes, you are correct about the IWR (AUF 2002)...
It is noted as you illustrated, as a specific statutory authorization per the War Powers Act, section 5(c). And I see you also see the way out of the box of having a vote to revoke the 2002 AUF. All the discussion I have heard with Clinton/Byrd is about revoking the AUF. But that's likely to be subject to filibuster and veto, as it will be a standard Congressional resolution. We have to avoid that problem.

And the answer is, to simply declare victory in Iraq under the terms of the 2002 AUF. I have read the AUF and can't find any of the tasked mission that hasn't been completed. So as Hart2008 says, we make the old AUF moot by declaring victory and invoking section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, requiring the President to withdraw the troops. And we do that by concurrent resolution, as per the War Powers statute, as it isn't subject to Presidential affirmation by signature or veto.

The message we make to the public, is this action was necessary because of "mission creep" in America's mission in Iraq, that occurred during the last 4 years under the previous Republican Congress and was ignored. And that no Declaration of War or Authorization for Use of Military Force, is an open ended commitment by Congress or the American people for diversion of our troops away from the original purpose and mission.

I believe the public will agree with this logic and Bush will be forced to either withdraw our troops in 60 days (with the possibility of 30 days extension), or go to Congress for a new Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq (AUF 2007). Congress will then be able to limit the role our soldiers play in Iraq in the future and transition them from a Combat role, to one of training, force security, and terrorist interdiction. With troop levels being a small fraction of the current levels, to zero. The best option would be to remove all troops and stage any needed to interdict terrorist threats, from the periphery, perhaps Kuwait or Turkey.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. The present mission is "nation building" and is not covered by the 2002 IWR.
The current mission is "mission creep", or "bait and switch".

By removing Hussein we took the lid off a nasty internal political problem, but U.S. troops should not continue to occupy the country as a neocolonial force of coercion.

We declare "mission accomplished" and get out, since the stated mission was accomplished.

The unstated mission is to control Iraqi oil, and this mission will continue until the articles of impeachment are filed, or conviction in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Thank you
This is worth highlighting


If the old AUF is revoked, Congress can pass a new AUF with different parameters and a different military mission. The only role in this for the President, is to carry out the war instructions of Congress, in his Constitutional role as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

The Congress gives the President his war time "marching orders". The President must carry out the wishes of The Congress. People are confused about the powers of the different branches of the government. Bush isn't "Commander in Chief" of the entire nation for war purposes. He only commands the Armed Forces. The "Commander in Chief" of the Nation in war matters, is solely the United States Congress. Our founding fathers in their wisdom, took the power to wage war away from the king (president) and placed it with the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #15
22. Why revoke a Moot resolution?
Edited on Sun May-06-07 09:04 AM by Hart2008
Everyone needs to read the text of the IWR. Here is the meat of the IWR:

3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

A simple resolution that the terms of the previous IWR have been completed should suffice, i.e., that Iraq no longer poses a threat to the U.S. and has met all U.N. Security Council resolutions.

THEN advise the President he is in violation of the War Powers Act for involving U.S. troops in a civil war in Iraq.

In the end, it won't matter. Impeachment shall be required.

See my previous post above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. Incorrect!
Edited on Sun May-06-07 10:34 AM by ProSense
A simple majority vote does not revoke the authorization, otherwise Congress would simply do it. Why would they waste time on a non-binding deadline?

Saying it doesn't make it so. Supermajorities are needed to declare and end wars.

On edit: Nothing short of this will have the force of law to force Bush to act, that is unless he signs legislation passed by a simple majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. More information:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. More information:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seasat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Nope it is correct. A super majority is not required.
Can you point to the section of the war powers act where it requires a super majority for a concurrent resolution? The reason that this tactic hasn't been used is that it will wind up in the courts. There are some constitutional questions regarding the War Powers Act, especially this tactic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. That will have no impact. When Richardson say President can't veto, what is he referring to?
Unlike the resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military force in Iraq, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution contained language allowing Congress to repeal it at any time. Unsuccessful congressional efforts to repeal the Tonkin Gulf Resolution began as early as 1966, just two "quagmire-ish" years after its passage. Finally in January of 1971, Congress succeeded in passing a measure repealing the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. While he did not veto it, President Richard M. Nixon refused to honor the measure and continued to wage the war, claiming presidential authority to do so as commander in chief of the military. But, another far more effective act of Congress would ultimately end the Vietnam War by closing the federal purse strings.

link


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polemicist Donating Member (299 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Gulf of Tonkin was before the War Powers Act.....
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. In February, Diane Feinstein proposed de-authorizing the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polemicist Donating Member (299 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. That's why we don't "de-authorize" the war...
Edited on Mon May-07-07 10:16 PM by Polemicist
At least not in the way you envision. You have to realize that the 2002 AUF is what I call a "dependent resolution". It was required by the existing supreme statutory law regarding American military actions overseas, which is the War Powers Resolution of 1973. So we don't have to take the intermediate step of revoking or de-authorizing this "dependent resolution", with a new dependent resolution. We simply act within the authority of the guiding law of the land, the War Powers Act, and bypass any intermediate legislative action regarding the 2002 AUF. Congress just evokes the 5(c) clause of the War Powers act, because our troops in Iraq are no longer authorized by the 2002 AUF (per the requirments of the WPA 1973), as their mission has changed (mission creep).

What Governor Richardson has proposed and the options I have laid out predicated on Gov. Richardson's suggestion, is a Congressional course of action that simply can't be vetoed. That's why we skip the step trying to pass a resolution de-authorizing the 2002 AUF. There is simply no need to do that. Congress obviously intended to protect it's right to review the engagement of our Armed Forces initially and at any subsequent time, should the President deviate from his authorized authority. That's why clause 5(c) exists in the War Powers Act.

All Congress need do, is pass a new simple concurrent resolution, clearing the mission of the 2002 AUF as completed, and the current mission of nation building in Iraq as not authorized by Congress under the 1973 War Powers Act. Thus per that act, Congress is evoking it's statutory authority to require the President to withdraw US troops within 60 days, or request a new Authorization of Force for Iraq, that identifies and specifies the current mission of the occupation of Iraq.

Bush can't veto this concurrent resolution. His only course will be to challenge it in court. And he will lose. And if the concurrent resolution is part of a budget resolution, it can't be filibustered in the Senate, so we will get an "up and down vote" and a simple majority will pass this resolution.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Not binding (but I still don't see the vote requirement):
H. Con. Res. 227, introduced by Congressman Campbell on February 26, 1998, is a concurrent resolution that directs the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148, 50 U.S.C. 1541-1548), to remove United States Armed Forces from Bosnia by June 30, 1998, unless the President requests and Congress authorizes a later date.

Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution provides that:

. . . at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

Section 7 of the War Powers Resolution provides expedited procedures to govern the consideration of concurrent resolutions introduced pursuant to section 5(c).

Concurrent resolutions are resolutions passed by both houses of Congress but not sent to the President for signature into law. When the War Powers Resolution was enacted in 1973, it was widely believed that Congress could require the President to act in response to the passage of concurrent resolutions. In 1983, however, the Supreme Court ruled in INS v. Chadha that provisions of law purporting to require the President to act in response to the passage of concurrent resolutions are unconstitutional because they deny the President his right to veto legislation to which he objects. It is generally accepted that section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution was among the concurrent resolution provisions rendered ineffective by the Chadha decision.

The fact that a concurrent resolution passed pursuant to section 5(c) cannot legally require the President to withdraw United States Armed Forces from a foreign country does not mean that section 5(c)--and the associated expedited procedures of section 7--effectively have been repealed. Rather, the import of the Chadha decision is that any concurrent resolution passed pursuant to section 5(c) would not be binding.

link


Set a deadline, cut funding, end the war.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Vote requirement:
8. The congressional veto provision in 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional. Pp. 944-959.

(a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, 1 -- requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives -- and 7 -- requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the President, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House -- represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Pp. 944-951.

link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polemicist Donating Member (299 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. But the War Powers Resolution met all these conditions...
Edited on Tue May-08-07 03:09 AM by Polemicist
In 1973, including over riding a Presidential veto to become the statutory law of the land. The only real recourse to those who oppose the power granted to Congress by the WPA in 1973, is to introduce a resolution to repeal the War Powers Act. Or ask the Supreme Court to rule the WPA unconstitutional.

For that act gives specific statutory authority to Congress to act to compel the President to remove US military forces from conflicts without Congressional authorization. And it provides that authority for Congress to act specifically by Concurrent Resolution.

There are some difficulties in applying INS v. Chadha to this WPA Statute. In fact, the WPA was referenced in the opinions of INS v. Chadha. And for 24 years since Chadha, Presidents have obeyed the WPA and not challenged it on these grounds. It's interesting to see who dissented in this opinion. It was the conservative wing of the SCOTUS, which is now stronger than it was in 1983.

White, J., dissenting.
Justice White argued that (1) the legislative veto power is absolutely necessary to modern government, as exemplified by the legislative veto powers granted in the War Powers Act of 1973. (2) The absence of constitutional provisions for alternate methods of action does not imply their prohibition by the Constitution, and the Court has consistently read the Constitution to respond to contemporary needs with flexibility. (3) The legislative veto power does not involve the ability of Congress to enact new legislation without bicameral consensus or presentation to the president, but instead involves the ability of Congress to veto suggestions by the executive, a power that both houses of Congress already possess. (4) Further, the Court has allowed Congress to delegate authority to executive agencies; therefore, lawmaking does not always require bicameralism or presentation. (5) Finally, the bicameralism and presentation provisions of the Constitution serve to ensure that no departure from the status quo takes place without consensus from both houses of Congress and the President, or a super-majority of both houses of Congress. In this case, the deportation of Chadha is the status quo situation, and the veto by House of Representatives of an alternate suggestion of the executive branch is perfectly reasonable given the purposes of bicameralism and the presentment clause.

Rehnquist, J., with whom White, J., joins, dissenting.
Justice Rehnquist argued that it is unlikely that Congress would have promulgated 244(a)(1) without the corresponding provisions of 244(c)(12). Therefore, the provisions are not severable from one another, and holding one unconstitutional requires invalidating the other.


There is, however, a trump card in any future debate in the SCOTUS regarding the War Powers Act by anyone using arguments from the majority opinion logic from INS v Chadha. And that is, the Constitution specifically provides the power to declare war, to the Congress. And when you read the INS v Chadha majority opinions, you will notice that the Justices point out the lack of a specific Congressional extra-legislative Constitutional power in that immigration issue.

There is a specific Constitutional power resting with Congress regarding the WPA. And it is located at Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, which vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. So you can't solely apply the logic of INS v. Chadha directly to this issue. INS v. Chadha is trumped by the inherent authority of Congress, independent of the Executive,to make decisions regarding declaring war. And it's why no one has challenged the WPA for 34 years and it's legislative veto power in section 5(c). A legal challenge to the WPA and clause 5(c) based on Chadha, likely wouldn't even be accepted by the Supreme Court due the Congress' inherent power on this issue, derived directly from the Constitution.

Not all Congressional authority requires agreement by Presidential signature. One example is the ability of Congress to Impeach members of the Executive or Courts. Another is the power of Congress to Declare War or Authorize the use of Military Force.

The majority ruling in INS v Chadha,was based on two Constitutional areas, bicameralism and presentment. Bicameralism wouldn't apply to my argument on using WPA 5(c), as unlike Chadha, both Houses of Congress must pass the Concurrent Resolution I recommended. The presentment argument is negated by the inherent authority of Congress based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, the War Powers Clause of the Constitution. Congress doesn't have to present a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force to the President for signature. Such action is an inherent power of Congress and isn't subject to Presidential affirmation or veto.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. Two-thirds majority.
Edited on Tue May-08-07 07:31 AM by ProSense
Not all Congressional authority requires agreement by Presidential signature. One example is the ability of Congress to Impeach members of the Executive or Courts. Another is the power of Congress to Declare War or Authorize the use of Military Force.


Two-thirds majority to convict and remove from office. Impeachment is a slap on the wrist without conviction, see Clinton. Declaration of war, two-thirds majority. Any action beyond a non-binding that doesn't require executive involvement or a two-thirds majority will be considered non-binding. There is no getting around it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polemicist Donating Member (299 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. SCOTUS might not rule the same way today...
Edited on Wed May-09-07 10:46 AM by Polemicist
As they did in 1983 on this issue. And the question of the use of the "legislative veto" isn't completely settled law. There are still great differences of opinion among legal scholars on this issue. And there is the possibility that different factors in a Bush v US Congress regarding the WPA, might result in a different decision than INS v Chadha. It's interesting when one looks at the history of the legislative veto, that it was essentially an invention of wartime (during WWII) to allow delegation of war powers from Congress to the Executive, but allowing for final review by the Legislature. It was also used before WWII to reorganize the government in response to the Great Depression. So there is a long history of the successful use of this tactic, prior to INS v Chadha. And the fact that this one case overturned more statutory law than the entire history of the SCOTUS prior to that time, won't sit well with the originalists now populating the SCOTUS. They believe in much less judicial activism and much more in legislative authority derived from elected officials.

Read Justice White's dissent on INS v Chadha. I've read a lot of Supreme Court cases, and in this one, the overwhelmingly persuasive logic, imho, is on the side of a legislative veto being completely Constitutional.

To sum it up, Congress holds the Constitutional authority to Declare War or Authorize the Use of Military Force. The Executive wished for Congress to delegate of some of this authority to the President. So Congress did so, by enacting the rules for this delegation in the War Powers Act, an act that was approved by super majorities of Congress over a Presidential Veto. The Executive wanted the delegated powers, but objected to the section 5 (c) hold back of legislative authority.

Congress reserved the right in section 5(c) to reassert it's Constitutional role over war matters, by concurrent vote. The President objected to this and vetoed the War Powers Act. If we disallow 5(c)now, by saying the lack of Presidential review is unConstitutional, we are in effect, giving the Executive Branch two chances to veto this bill, which is absolutely unconstitutional.

The arguments of INS v. Chadha, should properly only apply to original legislation, not to derivative actions of the legislature regarding the clauses in existing legislation. In other words, the WPA passes the bicameral and presentment requirements of the Constitution, as it passed both houses of Congress, was presented to the President, who vetoed the legislation, but said veto was over-ridden by super majorities of both houses of Congress.

You got your super majorities in 1973. That was the sole chance the Executive had to stop that legislation. It would be unconstitutional to provide the President with a second veto opportunity or require super majorities of Congress to enforce existing and properly enacted statutory law.

However, all the arguments you make, are likely why Congress hasn't used this tactic to end the Iraq War. But it might be the best option, in the face of Presidential vetoes of Supplemental Budgets. Cause we absolutely do have the "super majority" issue on all those bills, that you keep harping about. So I really don't get your "super majority" objections. They already exist and we have no way around them at present, short of letting the money run out, which is a bad political choice. The only chance to avoid super majority requirements or bad politics or endless war, may come down to the WPA and 5(c) and the SCOTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #39
44. To hell with SCOTUS. Impeach them too if they try to stop this.
The Shrub is daring us to impeach him. Allowing SCOTUS to intervene will only result in delay. The constitutional powers of the Congress to declare, etc., are best left to the Congress to assert, not the courts.

If SCOTUS attempts to save his ass again, we make an election issue of impeaching certain obstructionist Justices. Either way, impeachment is a political issue, not legal. They need to be impeached. Gonzo is first. Cheney goes next without replacement upon conviction. Junior is last. Executive privilege doesn't work in impeachments.

;)

With the right candidate we can get super-majorities in the House and Senate if the present course of action continues, but only with the right candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #37
43. Only congress has the authority to authorize a war.
Therefore, congress can de-authorize it. The executive branch has no right to enter into war WITHOUT congressional authority. That is why this whole thread started out wrong. All the executive branch has in terms of power is the right to be commander in chief of the armed forces WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZES a war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
40. Want to end it with no residual forces? Vote Richardson.
Also, Richardson bases his de-authorization on the War Powers Act.

https://secure.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/gove...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul 13th 2014, 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC