Op Ed: The Purse Isn't Congress's Only Weapon »
Posted by: deathray 1 year, 5 months ago180 Comments Report this Story
Congress is hardly limited to this seemingly magical power of the purse. It has several sources of constitutional authority over the use of military force, including the express right "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."
Read Full Story at nytimes.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 180
-
0%
deathray1 year, 5 months ago
The Administration are doing their best by trying to control the debate over checks on Presidential power to wage war. Apparently it's not an all or nothing proposition:
'...including the express right "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."'
What do you think?
Reply-
100%
jordan111 year, 5 months ago
.including the express right "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."'
What do you think?>>>>>
They don't have the votes in the Senate to pass it. If it did pass, bush would veto it, and they wouldn't have the votes to block the veto. The democrats do not have power in the Senate.
Reply-
83%
lfergie8121 year, 5 months ago
I think that the tide is flowing the other way and Republicans up for re-election in 2008 has to watch how they vote because this war is not popular. If they are seen going against the wishes of the people that voted them into congress, they could be ex-congresspersons. Like the author stated in his article, the conditions of going into Iraq has changed.
Reply -
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
.....regulation of the land and naval forces....that would mean stuff like the UCMJ, base closures, what equipment to buy, what weapons they use, what color uniforms, things like that....
Reply
-
-
75%
Beau78901 year, 5 months ago
Congress can (if they can get it together to do this) use the same principle the executive branch uses to usurp power from other branches.
Regardless of whether it's constitutional or not, they can enact legislation (which of course may be vetoed, which Congress could possibly override) to promote any agenda they wish regarding the war. Or anything else, for that matter.
It's not my favorite tactic, disregarding the Constitution entirely, but it's the only one that will surely get the president's--and the public's--attention.
Any legislation enacted by Congress is law until the Supreme Court says it's not, and that could take a while.
Reply-
0%
johnnyt1 year, 5 months ago
"It's not my favorite tactic, disregarding the Constitution entirely, but it's the only one that will surely get the president's--and the public's--attention."
so 2 wrongs do make a right! breaking the constitution because someone did it first in not the path to go. all that will lead to is the constitution being only a piece of paper nothing more. that being said i am somewhat confused with the "get the publics attention". i dont think it is the job of congress to enact laws to get their attention. they are to enact laws that the people desire to make their country the way they desire. remember the politians are here for the peoples benefit not the other way around. the people should make the policies of this country.
Reply -
0%
donald511 year, 5 months ago
Beau, can't happen as long as there are so many Bush sycophants, as Ifergie mentioned above. Bush will be in damage control until the next elections with all the past problems of the Republicans downplayed to the maximum. Besides, Dems are trying to stay within the laws and perview of the Constitution - Dems have the scrupples that we now know Repugs have never had (Watergate, Iran Contra, Abramoff/Foley scandals, Plamegate, torture definition, backing out of Geneva, World Courts and Kyoto Protocals, using 911 fears to attack Iraq, etc.).
Reply
-
-
71%
ramblingwreck1 year, 5 months ago
"to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."
Taken from Article 1 Section 7, the reference does not necessarily mean that Congress can require the President (any President) to withdraw troops once they have authorized deployment. "rules for the government" likely was intended to grant Congress the right to determine how the various agencies of the government would interact. "regulation of the land and naval forces" likely refers to Congress' authority to develop/approve of the rules by which members of the military would conduct themselves (UCMJ, Geneva Conventions, etc.)
Congress has opptions besides cutting funding; both houses of congress passing a bill retracting their authorization for use of force, requiring specific training standards, etc. are all options.
Congress has the right to develop a backbone and unequivocally state its intent. If the American people support them, it will be done.
Reply-
33%
IcCaRus1 year, 5 months ago
"Taken from Article 1 Section 7, the reference does not necessarily mean that Congress can require the President (any President) to withdraw troops......"
thats YOUR interpretation, at least you present it as if it is. if it is, i think i have more faith in the authors, since they are both lawyers with experience at the highest levels of our government. if its not your interpretation, please provide the source.
Reply
-
-
0%
injest1 year, 5 months ago
Defenders of President Bush concede that Congress has "the power of the purse" and insist it could use it to completely "cut off the funds to the troops." But that, most of them say, is the only power Congress has to change the course of the war.
It should be painfully obvious to even the dumbest on the left that this Democrat controlled house hasn't got he balls to do ANYTHING about Iraq. If you voted for them based on Iraq congratulations you've been BAMBOOZLED
Reply -
-
-
0%
Amazing11 year, 5 months ago
Congress needs to use every power available to stop this war. They members of Congress are either part of the solution or an addition to the problem.
In addition, the current administration has been totally wrong on every prediction they have made about this debacle. The Iraqis did not greet us as liberators, the insurgents were not in their last throes, the mission was never accomplished, there were no WMD, the war has not paid for itself and there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Therefore, why should any of us believe a word of what they say when they predict that leaving Iraq would embolden the terrorists? Their track record indicates they have this wrong, too.
Reply-
83%
Bkumm1 year, 5 months ago
((Perhaps this is a being a little extreme on the topic))
Please tell me something that they have gotten right, excluding of course the fact that we rolled over the regular Iraq forces.
(( Many did, in large groups))
For a while
(( The regime was changed... the stability of the new government had not been completed))
The mission, so we were told, was to overthrow a brutal dictator, misson accomplished. So why are we still there?
(( Tons of WMD and illegal weapons were recovered))
I have not heard of any WMD being recovered. Please provide a source.
(( Pages and pages of connections were identified in the 9/11 report and the senate report between Saddam and al-Qaeda.))
Again, please provide a source. According to my reading there were contacts between the two but no connection.
(Common sense, al-Qaeda elements made incursions & attacks into Northern Iraq on 9/11/2001 at the same time al-Qaeda attacked the U.S.)
What?
And again with the Red Communists. I swear.
Reply-
100%
Bkumm1 year, 5 months ago
Yes, the elections and constitution have done SO much good.
Capture of Saddam. Okay, gotta give you that one.
No one is saying that everything went wrong, people are saying that what the Administration claimed was unmitigated success was not. That is the contention and nothing that you can say will mitigate that.
Reply -
100%
donald511 year, 5 months ago
David, only you would say the 911 report has pages and pages that say a Sadam to OBL link, when the report in fact concludes where was no link. Then you site a source of right wing BS as your further validation and all it contains is Sadams links to other Moslem terrorist orgaizations besides OBL and the one case (also denied by the 911 report as a Sadam to Al Qaeda link) of one of the 911 pilots meeting with an Iraqi official. How can you live under such delusions?
Reply
-
100%
scriblerus11 year, 5 months ago
"Many did, in large groups"
What exactly does "many" mean?
I recall one of the shots made by camera people working for the so-called "liberal media" of people tearing down Saddam's statue. The shot included maybe 50 to 100 people in a fairly tight frame so as to suggest that many more people were there. I saw another shot, taken from a more distant point, later. It revealed that indeed only about 100 people were involved.
Now 100 people can of course be construed as "many." On the other hand, 100 does not represent a large percentage of the densely populated city of several millions that is Baghdad.
"Many" is a squishy and flexible term typical of dishonest propagandists.
Reply-
0%
SusanParrish1 year, 5 months ago
I think you are wrong, for 100 people to go out during a war, as the opposing army is entering their capital, to cheer and support the toppling of a statue of their evil dictator, whom most, if not all, of them fear, when you are not even certain this is the end of him, when you know he and his cronies may see you televised, takes enormous guts, and is a larger amount than you'd find coming outside in any American city.
Reply
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
100%
NelsonR1 year, 5 months ago
DavidHalko - Sorry your logic is unsound. Now I understand why this aggressor war is continuing. I will address your last comment about "Vietnam and red Communists which slaughtered million for decades", that is ludicrous and definitely a falsehood. So concerning the rest of your post, it is unfactual. Please research topics first.
Reply-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
And besides that, the massacre of millions after we left because of the left stopping funding of our troops is true...about 3.5 million people, at least....
Reply
-
-
