Democrats Move to Limit Bush's Authority (again)

[Goobieman]

Democrats Move to Limit Bush's Authority
WASHINGTON (AP) - Four years ago, Congress passed legislation authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq. Now Senate Democrats want to take it back.

Key lawmakers, backed by party leaders, are drafting legislation that would effectively revoke the broad authority granted to the president in the days Saddam Hussein was in power, and leave U.S. troops with a limited mission as they prepare to withdraw.

Officials said Thursday the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled. One version would restrict American troops in Iraq to fighting al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., intends to present the proposal to fellow Democrats next week, and he is expected to try to add the measure to anti-terrorism legislation scheduled to be debated later this month. Officials who described the strategy spoke only on condition of anonymity, noting that rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the details.

My Way News - Democrats Move to Limit Bush's Authority
So... the dems want to try to "undeclare" war.
Where does Congress get THAT power?
And one can only wonder what they will do about the veto that is sure to come if this passes.

Republicans recently thwarted two Democratic attempts to pass a nonbinding measure through the Senate that was critical of Bush's decision to deploy an additional 21,500 combat troops.

After failing on his second attempt last Saturday, Reid said he would turn his attention to passing binding legislation.

Yeah.
And why hasnt THIS been all over the news, as it would have been had it passed...?

 

[Captain America]

Well, somebody needs to.

We just can't afford to humor him until the end of his term. Too much, too little, too late.

That "non-binding" resolution attempt was merely a ploy by the dems to get everyone on record as to who supports what. An old republican trick. Remember the homosexual hoopla started by the right? The issue itself really didn't mean poop to a tree but they wanted to get the dems on record as to where they stood for the upcoming elections.

Now the dems want to do the same to the repubs. Supporting Bush's surge, or even his policies, is political suicide these days.

Classic Karl Rove. Wonder where the dems learned that? :rofl

 

[Goobieman]

Well, somebody needs to.

They can defund the war, if they want.
But they arent talking about that at all.

We just can't afford to humor him until the end of his term. Too much, too little, too late.

Then defund the war.

That "non-binding" resolution attempt was merely a ploy by the Democrats to get everyone on record as to who supports what. An old republican trick.

Too bad the Dems arent as good at it, eh?

 

[reaganburch]

My Way News - Democrats Move to Limit Bush's Authority
So... the dems want to try to "undeclare" war.
Where does Congress get THAT power?
And one can only wonder what they will do about the veto that is sure to come if this passes.


Yeah.
And why hasnt THIS been all over the news, as it would have been had it passed...?

Wait... Congress authorized President Bush to go to war in Iraq? Is that what the article said?

What about all this talk about an illegal war, then? How can it be illegal if Congress authorized it in the first place?

 

[Ikari]

Formal war was never declared, the Congress granted the President extra power, which was something they shouldn't have done in the first place (want war, get a formal declaration from Congress). Congress can take it back if they wish, they are supposed to act as a check on the Executive and Judicial branches. It's time they actually act like it, no more non-binding resolution crap. Congress needs to take the power given to it, defend it, and use it.

 

[Goobieman]

Wait... Congress authorized President Bush to go to war in Iraq? Is that what the article said?
What about all this talk about an illegal war, then? How can it be illegal if Congress authorized it in the first place?

[homer]D'oh![/homer]
The meaning of "illegal" changes, depeding on which side of his mouth a liberal is talking. :roll:

 

[Goobieman]

Formal war was never declared, the Congress granted the President extra power, which was something they shouldn't have done in the first place (want war, get a formal declaration from Congress).

Congress doesnt have the Constitutional power to "authorize" a war outside of actually declaring that a state of war exists.

Congress can take it back if they wish, they are supposed to act as a check on the Executive and Judicial branches.

Congress has absolutely NO power to declare that a war is over.
Ignoring that for a moment, how do you suppse Congress will deal with the inevitable veto of any attempt to make such a declaration?

 

[Ikari]

They can override veto's if Congress is united enough to do so. Also, no war was ever declared, there was no formal declaration of war from Congress.

 

[Goobieman]

They can override veto's if Congress is united enough to do so.

Yes. That's not going to happen.

Also, no war was ever declared, there was no formal declaration of war from Congress.

That's right.
So, what Constitutional power is Congress exercising by passing legislation to operationally limit and/or end a war -- a war that it did not declare, but gave authorization for?

 

[WI Crippler]

Yeah.
And why hasnt THIS been all over the news, as it would have been had it passed...?

Didn't you hear, Anna Nicole Smith died, and Britney Spears is in and out of rehab. Iraq is but a distant thought, when important stuff like this is happening. Has Anna Nicole Smiths death brought peace to the ME??

 

[aps]

Wait... Congress authorized President Bush to go to war in Iraq? Is that what the article said?

What about all this talk about an illegal war, then? How can it be illegal if Congress authorized it in the first place?

Well, the rationale for going into Iraq no longer applies. Here's what Congress authorized the President to do:

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.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

I don't believe that Iraq is a continuing threat on our national security. The link I provide gives all the background for why Congress gave the President this authority. A civil war is not mentioned; rather, it was based upon the threat of Iraq having nuclear weapons that it would use against us and the fact that Saddam kept violating the UN resolutions. I see nothing in there regarding a civil war within Iraq.

This is why people have said that the current war in Iraq is illegal. If you or anyone can show that the conditions listed in the authorization to go to war in Iraq are currently applicable, I'm all "eyes."

 

[reaganburch]

Well, the rationale for going into Iraq no longer applies. Here's what Congress authorized the President to do:



I don't believe that Iraq is a continuing threat on our national security. The link I provide gives all the background for why Congress gave the President this authority. A civil war is not mentioned; rather, it was based upon the threat of Iraq having nuclear weapons that it would use against us and the fact that Saddam kept violating the UN resolutions. I see nothing in there regarding a civil war within Iraq.

This is why people have said that the current war in Iraq is illegal. If you or anyone can show that the conditions listed in the authorization to go to war in Iraq are currently applicable, I'm all "eyes."

Well, with all due respect, just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it so...

However, let me make sure I get this right. You're saying that it was LEGAL for President Bush to go into Iraq in the first place, but it's now ILLEGAL that we're still there?

 

[aps]

Well, with all due respect, just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it so...

However, let me make sure I get this right. You're saying that it was LEGAL for President Bush to go into Iraq in the first place, but it's now ILLEGAL that we're still there?

I think it can be argued that the conditions upon which we went into Iraq no longer exist and the president no longer has the authority to keep our troops in Iraq. I wasn't saying that the current war is illegal; rather, that it could be argued that it is illegal for these reasons.

 

[Goobieman]

I think it can be argued that the conditions upon which we went into Iraq no longer exist and the president no longer has the authority to keep our troops in Iraq. I wasn't saying that the current war is illegal; rather, that it could be argued that it is illegal for these reasons.

The war we're fighting now is a direct continuation of the war that was authorized in 2002. No new authorization is necessary, as the original authorization is still in effect. Congress has no power to decide when a war is over.

Never mind that these authorizations have no constitutional basis whatsoever.

 

[aps]

Never mind that these authorizations have no constitutional basis whatsoever.

LOL Ahhhh, yes.....you're our Constitutional expert. (NOT.)

 

[reaganburch]

I think it can be argued that the conditions upon which we went into Iraq no longer exist and the president no longer has the authority to keep our troops in Iraq. I wasn't saying that the current war is illegal; rather, that it could be argued that it is illegal for these reasons.

Who's job is it to define that "the conditions upon which we went into Iraq no longer exist"? Is it Congress? The DOD? The President? Secretary of Defense/State?

 

[Goobieman]

LOL Ahhhh, yes.....you're our Constitutional expert. (NOT.)

As usual, you chose to mock a post rather than to post an effective rebuttal.

Please show me how Congress, absent a delcaration of war, has the power to authorize military action against another country.

 

[danarhea]

Didn't you hear, Anna Nicole Smith died, and Britney Spears is in and out of rehab. Iraq is but a distant thought, when important stuff like this is happening. Has Anna Nicole Smiths death brought peace to the ME??

You hit the nail on the head, concerning the mediawhores.

As for what the Democrats are doing, their efforts will fail, and they know that. However, this is not about successfully passing resolutions, but gearing up for next year's elections. They will have something to hold Republicans accountable for. If the issue of binding resolutions gains traction, it will be great for the Dems, even if those resolutions don't pass. If it doesn't, then they won't get much out of it. But, either way, any idiot knows that what the Dems are doing isn't really for the good of America, but for the good of their own political campaigns. In that respect, they are no different than the Republicans. Their own self interest comes before their own country.

 

[Goobieman]

But, either way, any idiot knows that what the Dems are doing isn't really for the good of America, but for the good of their own political campaigns. In that respect, they are no different than the Republicans. Their own self interest comes before their own country.

Oh, its a DAMN good thing they won!

 

[reaganburch]

You hit the nail on the head, concerning the mediawhores.

As for what the Democrats are doing, their efforts will fail, and they know that. However, this is not about successfully passing resolutions, but gearing up for next year's elections. They will have something to hold Republicans accountable for. If the issue of binding resolutions gains traction, it will be great for the Democrats, even if those resolutions don't pass. If it doesn't, then they won't get much out of it. But, either way, any idiot knows that what the Dems are doing isn't really for the good of America, but for the good of their own political campaigns. In that respect, they are no different than the Republicans. Their own self interest comes before their own country.

There you go, I was just about to type that after reading the first half of your post, but you came to the same logical conclusion that I did...

Both parties are playing games for their own political gain... that's why I wish we'd kick the ENTIRE lot of them out and start from scratch. After watching Robert Byrd on C-Span Saturday, I can't imagine that West Virginia couldn't find a better person for the Senate than him.

 

[aps]

Who's job is it to define that "the conditions upon which we went into Iraq no longer exist"? Is it Congress? The DOD? The President? Secretary of Defense/State?

Good question. It might be Congress and the President and that they could possibly take it to the judiciary if they disagreed?

 

[reaganburch]

Good question. It might be Congress and the President and that they could possibly take it to the judiciary if they disagreed?

What I'm trying to say is that until that question is asked & answered by a impartial party, such as a judiciary or something like that, then you can't say with certainty that the war IS illegal. Just that it MIGHT be illegal. And definately not up to the level of impeachment that some people on this board are 'screeching' about...

 

[Goobieman]

Good question. It might be Congress and the President and that they could possibly take it to the judiciary if they disagreed?

Holy cow. YoU REALLY dont know how governemnt works, do you?
How do you suppose that Congress and the President "take it to the judiciary"?

 

[Iriemon]

Holy cow. YoU REALLY dont know how governemnt works, do you?
How do you suppose that Congress and the President "take it to the judiciary"?

It's called a "lawsuit".

 

[aps]

What I'm trying to say is that until that question is asked & answered by a impartial party, such as a judiciary or something like that, then you can't say with certainty that the war IS illegal. Just that it MIGHT be illegal. And definately not up to the level of impeachment that some people on this board are 'screeching' about...

I agree with you.