Congress can stop Iraq war, experts tell lawmakers

[sabra]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N30329230.htm


Congress can stop Iraq war, experts tell lawmakers

WASHINGTON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress has the power to end the war in Iraq, several high-powered legal experts including a former Bush administration attorney told a Senate hearing on Tuesday.

With many lawmakers poised to confront President George W. Bush by voting disapproval of his war policy in the coming days, four of five experts called before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee said Congress could go further and restrict or stop U.S. involvement if it chose.

"I think the constitutional scheme does give Congress broad authority to terminate a war," said Bradford Berenson, a Washington lawyer who was a White House associate counsel under Bush from 2001 to 2003.

"It is ultimately Congress that decides the size, scope and duration of the use of military force," said Walter Dellinger, former acting solicitor general -- the government's chief advocate before the Supreme Court -- in 1996-97, and an assistant attorney general three years before that.

[gratuitous]

1. The Nervous Nellies wring their tiny hands

"Oh dearie me, but George and Dick and Tony all said we couldn't stop them! What ever shall we do???"

ITMFA

[EFerrari]

19. F* me, how can this possibly be "news".

Calgon, take them away.

[hashibabba]

2. HOORAY! This is great news. Now, get to work Congress and

MAKE IT HAPPEN!

[jody]

3. Congress must pass a bill which * would veto. Either 34 senators or 146 reps could sustain that veto

IMO it's highly unlikely in todays polarized congress that congress would override such a bill.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Budget Bill

If he vetoes a budget bill it could backfire on him. Provided Congress makes it plain to voters that he is vetoing the bill because Congress won't let him wage war willy nilly. The more that the American people are fed up with the Iraqi War and find that they have been duped the more likely they will support Congress in curtailing bush.

Budget Bill would require that expenditures would curtail military action. They can't do anything IMO about any budget bills passed in the last session that covers running the government during this fiscal year. Best bush could do is run the govt using 2007 funding in 2008.

Congress would need to be steadfast and persistent in telling bush to pass the budget.

If bush uses a signing statement and somehow manipulates the budget so that the military has the funding he wants then Congress needs to act.

[jody]

5. I believe Clinton vetoed a budget bill and made Gingrich yell uncle. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

7. I know... that is why Congress would have to make it clear

why Bush is wrong.

The voters saw through Gingrich and the Republican Congress and at this time I believe they will also see through Bush and put the blame on him instead of Congress.

I don't think Bush would veto... he is more likely to use a signing statement so he can try to avoid Congress.

[jahyarain]

8. so who do we need to raise hell with

to do away with pres. signing statements? forever.

[LiberalFighter]

12. Demand that USSCJ rule signing statements unconstitutional

Demand that Congress impeach the sob and remove him from office
Demand that Congress hold public hearings only about Bush and his failures and illegal activities.

Demand that Congress get some balls.

[jody]

9. A signing statement would turn the issue over to SCOTUS while a veto places it

back in congress' lap.

IMO I don't think the probability is very high that congress could override a veto of a bill limiting Bush's authority to fight his War on Terror.

My concerns are why I believe it's so important for congress to include sunset provisions in bills.

IMO it would be great if * had to come back to congress and re justify the Patriot Act that had sunset.:evilgrin:

[Luckyduck]

6. WE are the deciders!

:applause:

[goforit]

15. That has a great ring to it.

[rodeodance]

10. Congress just needs the Political Will to stop the war -

[Flabbergasted]

11. Yes but Pelosi and Hoyer are AIPAC whores. They are convinced that they are powerless.

[Miss Chybil]

13. I'm hoping this is true and somebody will act upon it. Of course,

they could end the Iraq war just in time to start one in Iran.

[goforit]

14. Ouch!!!....this is worse than impeachment for Bush. Complete mutiny!

[humbled_opinion]

21. I think the best course of action is to

Start impeachment proceedings at once. Once the public sees that this Congress has a set it will rally around a simple decision to cut funding and bring the troops home. I think the country is mostly convinced that this war was ill conceived but they lack the deep thought about the criminality of the war. If the Congress does not act this could potentially turn around in favor of Bush i.e., if his SURGE starts to show signs that the Iraqis are taking the lead and he gets to weasel out under the guise of see I told you my idea would work that may bode ill for Democrats in 08. IMHO

[Guaranteed]

16. Congress can basically do anything, including change the Constitution.

The legislative body is the basis of a representative government.

[jody]

17. "change the Constitution"? Not without approval of 38 state legislatures. In today's Washington,

only SCOTUS can effectively change the Constitution through decisions and a president through signing statements and executive orders.

[Guaranteed]

18. Well, again, it's the legislature(s) that are the basis.

That's where the "representation" comes from.

[pat_k]

23. "Co-equal" is BS. When we empowered Congress to impeach. . .

. . .we put a big fat thumb on the "balance of power" in favor of Congress -- our voice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3086616&mesg_id=3088171

The bottom line is that Congress is not "co-equal." The power to impeach gives Congress power over the other branches. Neither the executive or the judiciary can touch a member of Congress. Even if convicted of a crime and jailed, only the House can expel a Member of the House; only the Senate can expel a Member of the Senate.

We vested to power to impeach with the House because it is the body closet to the people, the body we keep in line with our votes every two years.

It only makes sense that we would give more power to Congress. They are OUR Voice. When we established our Constitution, we surrendered NONE of our sovereignty to any institution we created.

[Moby Grape]

20. simple, don't appropriate any money.

not that Congress has the courage to do so.

[pat_k]

22. Duh. Impeach Bush and Cheney.

It's the ONLY way to restore the legitimacy and sanity required to have a shot at engaging the stakeholders and extracting ourselves.

Not to mention that when Bush bombs Tehran, the blame will be heaped on Pelosi and the Dems. We'll be hearing something variation of the following from all quarters:

"They knew this was coming, but decided minimum wage -- zero risk -- was more important than stopping WWIII. As usual, the cowardly Dems refuse to stand up. They are useless jellyfish. Why did we bother to vote them in? President Hagel might be a wacko on some things, but at least he'd show some balls.")