Is it possible for Congress to revoke its war powers authority after

[Veggie Meathead]

discovering the evidence on which that authority was given was falsified?If so, why has such a resolution to revoke the IWR not been introduced?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Lemme see, Delay controls the Rules Committee

Last time I checked he is among the worst offenders

[Veggie Meathead]

2. Can Democratic Congressmen introduce bills which DeLay is forced to reject

and thus build sufficient support among the general public for these motions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Rangel introduced an impeachment bill

against Rummy... have you heard of this?

He did such durign the hearings over Abu Ghraib....

Again have you heard of this.

They can, but if the press refuses to carry this, FORGET IT

and Delay will block using procedure

Our best and only hope is to RETAKE the hill and reform the media

[K-W]

4. Losing battles like that would hurt the cause.

It would make the democrats look like losers and also make them look weak on defense. Its unfortunate but true.

[Veggie Meathead]

6. This where Karl Rove differs from us.He does not mind losing

a few battles in order to win the war for the hearts and minds of people.We can keep this issue at the forefront only by repeatedly introducing losing motions and pointing out that if the Tom DeLays and Bill Frists had done what we have suggested the deaths of many soldiers could be easily prevented.

[K-W]

5. And you are missing the real point here, Bush violated the IWR.

The IWR said that war could only be used as a last resort. Bush never had congressional approval of the war he ended up fighting.

So Bush took the country to war without the approval of congress. The problem is the media isnt holding him accountable and neither is congress. The just result should be impeachment, but the house and senate are both republican controlled and the democrats probably dont feel like a failed impeachment measure would do them much good.

[Veggie Meathead]

7. You have a point.Short of impeachment we can still wage a

guerilla warfare hitting them on the point that there is no sufficient evidence that WMD's even existed and so a recall of the IWR resolution would be appropriate.If that is blocked several times, a TV and Press campaign should be waged like Karl Rove does using our surrogates.

[K-W]

9. Ah, but that would require congress taking responsibility for the war.

And I dont even think the republicans want that now. And recalling the IWR wouldnt have any great effect. It would just look like congress taking the blame for the war, probably hurt Kerry most of all. It would totally discredit his position that the IWR vote was not a vote for this war, it was a vote for the threat of force to back up a comprehensive inspection process.

[tritsofme]

12. In what way? Congress got what it payed for.

SEC. 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

--------------------------------------------

After Congress handed him the blank check, all he had to do was notify congressional leaders 48 hours into it.

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

8. Congress cannot GRANT war powers to the prez

I know they've been doing it for decades but the constitution says only congress can declare a war and congress cannot just give that power to a prez. By rights a constitutional amendment is needed to do that.

[K-W]

10. That argument is not sound.

You are advocating the strictest of adherence to the letter of the constititution. A bill to give a president authority to use force in a certain set of conditions certainly falls under the spirit of declaring war.

The war powers act, however is much more questionable, though not a slam dunk by any means.

[strategery blunder]

11. Technically, you're right, but they will until SCOTUS rules on it

As I recall, someone brought this up in Vietnam and filed suit challenging the legality of the war, but SCOTUS refused to hear the case. So we're stuck with this.

My source is a print source; I do not have a link (can anyone help me?). However, here is a citation:

Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present, 2nd ed. (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1995)