Warner on Sen Floor saying Levin amendm. is prob. UNconstitutional

[rodeodance]

Warner on Sen Floor saying Levin amendm. is prob. UNconstitutional
cause it dictates to the Pres a strategy for war (which belongs to the Exec Branch).


Oh oh

[blondeatlast]

1. That's been the talking point for a while now. I smell BS,

but I'm not Constitutional wonky enough to say for certain.

[spanone]

2. shove it up their asses and cut the funding for everyfuckingthing.

:hippie:

[indepat]

14. I was thinking shove it up their asses and cut the funding

[indepat]

16. Yeah, the 1st named branch of government must tippy-toe around with care not to steps on

junior's executive toes all the while the Congress's powers are being almost totally usurped.

Edit: spelling

[HereSince1628]

3. Well, let's get a judgement on that from the DOJ? Errr, um, SCOTUS

Yeah, lets pass the amendment and then send it to the SCROT (Supreme Court Republicans On Task) for a fair and balanced hearing. :eyes:

[blondeatlast]

4. I think that's the set-up exactly. Same with Bush ordering Miers not to testify. nt

[Maat]

7. "SCROT" ...

I love it!

:rofl:

[Maat]

5. Nope; this law school graduate thinks that Warner is full of hot air.

There is a long line of Supreme Court cases (case precedent, otherwise known as 'the law') backing Congressional ability to tie funding to requirements.

By contrast, the High Court has not stated that the President's power, as Commander-in-Chief is unlimited, and has, in reality, only given him discretion as to initial placement of troops, daily execution of policy, etc.

My money's on Levin and Team this battle (if they have the spine to carry things out).

[TahitiNut]

11. June 30, 1970 - Church-Cooper amendment

<snip>

The amendment stipulated that the administration could not spend funds for soldiers, combat assistance, advisers, or bombing operations in Cambodia. Nixon had already withdrawn U.S. troops from that country, but he wanted the option to send them back if he felt it would help win the war in adjacent Vietnam. The House, not wanting to limit the commander in chief's options too much, endorsed a weaker version that limited the restrictions to ground troops. The Senate agreed, and the compromise version was attached to a supplemental aid bill that passed both the House and Senate. It was sent to the president in late December, and he signed it in January 1971, even though it tied his hands. "The passage of the Church-Cooper amendment marked the first successful use of congressional budgetary authority to limit the war," Zelizer says.

<snip>

In 1972, the Senate passed an amendment to foreign-aid legislation that would end funding for all U.S. military operations in Southeast Asia except for withdrawal (subject to the release of all prisoners of war). Senate passage marked the first time that either chamber had approved a total cutoff of funds for continuing the war.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070506/14vietnam_2.htm

[Maat]

18. ? O.K. That backs my contention that they may withhold funding.

The High Court has consistently backed up this Congressional power.

[damntexdem]

15. The Constitution gives the prez power as commander in chief, but does not mention war.

Congress is given the power with regard to war.

[Maat]

17. Yep (n/t).

[TwilightGardener]

6. There's an article in the Constitution that says Congress has the

power to make rules regarding land and sea forces--Durbin used it, Webb and Hagel used it last week to shoot down that talking point.

[SaveElmer]

8. Well technically we aren't at "war" as defined by the constitution...

Congress never formally declared war on Iraq...

[churchofreality]

9. Isn't congress supposed to declare war?

How did we get to this point? We didn't declared war in Vietnam and we didn't in Iraq. Congress, I got a fucking good idea, next time the president asks for a war resolution, say fuck you, and if there is a real occasion to defend the USA, declare war.

[Hubert Flottz]

10. Lying in a state of the union speech and causing a war is prolly

unconstitutional too but Warner never give a damn then. Warner helped Bush lie us into Traq.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Well then I guess he'll have to stay there until the Supreme Court decides.

Or, he could just vote for if he's so sure it's unconstitutional.

[rodeodance]

13. wonder if Byrd wll weigh in.

[thecrow]

23. I gave up on Byrd when he voted for scAlito

[Beaverhausen]

19. Webb talked about congress making Truman do something in WWII

yesterday on MTP. I foget the details but I'm sure it's in that great video of the Graham smackdown!

[Lex]

20. So Warner thinks we have a Dictator and not checks & balances?

Well, let Congress pull the funding for Dumbya's "strategery."

[Bitwit1234]

21. Son of a b**** is he for real

Section I of the Constitution forgot the article number, says that congress must approve a war. And the war is declared bush has the authority to deploy the troops, but the congress has to approve it first. I'll take a look and find the article number I think it is 3.

[old guy]

22. How come the right wingers always get away with just making

stuff up and never having to explain in detail their reasons. Before there can be a strategy for war, it must be declared, and only congress can do that. I don't see anything unconstitutional here. Congress is just basically telling him that!