[vexborg]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Doesn't he know his is not King George and can't have everything his way?

I'm sure he doesn't have a clue who King George was...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by tie 

What? Of course they went through it anyway. Bush was playing politics by saying he'd veto the bill, instead of meeting with them and organizing a compromise.

No, Bush was telling them what he was not willing to do. The ball was then in their court to organize a compromise. They knew Bush would veto any bill with withdrawal attached. They went on to pass it anyway, because their goal is just to attack Bush, not to get anything useful done.

Originally Posted by tie 

Bush needs to pay attention to the results of the last election.

He is. The last presidential election wound up with him leading the country. He is acting accordingly. The president's job is not to kowtow to whatever the current Congress wants.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, Bush was telling them what he was not willing to do. The ball was then in their court to organize a compromise. They knew Bush would veto any bill with withdrawal attached. They went on to pass it anyway, because their goal is just to attack Bush, not to get anything useful done.


He is. The last presidential election wound up with him leading the country. He is acting accordingly. The president's job is not to kowtow to whatever the current Congress wants.

Is it the job of the US Congress to kowtow to whatever the President wants?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, Bush was telling them what he was not willing to do. The ball was then in their court to organize a compromise. They knew Bush would veto any bill with withdrawal attached. They went on to pass it anyway, because their goal is just to attack Bush, not to get anything useful done.

He is. The last presidential election wound up with him leading the country. He is acting accordingly. The president's job is not to kowtow to whatever the current Congress wants.

Nor is it Congress's job to kowtow to the president. Congress told Bush what they were not willing to do, too. He knew that they were not satisfied with his 'stay the course for the next ten years' Iraq strategy. Don't give me, "the ball was in their court." Arguing whose court the ball was in is pretty stupid. It's in everybody's court, and they are all supposed to compromise.

... because their goal is just to attack Bush, not to get anything useful done.

Maybe Bush's goal in telling them he would veto their bill was just to attack the Democrats, not to get anything useful done?

If all your arguments apply equally well to both sides, then they aren't very strong arguments!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by tie 

Nor is it Congress's job to kowtow to the president. Congress told Bush what they were not willing to do, too. He knew that they were not satisfied with his 'stay the course for the next ten years' Iraq strategy.

That does not mean they had to give him an arbitrary deadline, which is the specific thing he said he would veto.

Originally Posted by tie 

Don't give me, "the ball was in their court." Arguing whose court the ball was in is pretty stupid. It's in everybody's court, and they are all supposed to compromise.

Frankly, I don't want people to compromise on our soldiers' lives.

Originally Posted by tie 

Maybe Bush's goal in telling them he would veto their bill was just to attack the Democrats, not to get anything useful done?

If all your arguments apply equally well to both sides, then they aren't very strong arguments!

That argument doesn't apply equally well to both sides. Bush didn't take some action that he knew would have no effect outside politics — his veto was an actual action. Congress, however, did the equivalent of mouthing words in choir practice. Bush vetoed and it worked. Congress passed the bill — knowing it wouldn't work — and it didn't. You can't say they're in the same situation here.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That argument doesn't apply equally well to both sides. Bush didn't take some action that he knew would have no effect outside politics — his veto was an actual action. Congress, however, did the equivalent of mouthing words in choir practice. Bush vetoed and it worked. Congress passed the bill — knowing it wouldn't work — and it didn't. You can't say they're in the same situation here.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I can't follow your distinction between "actual" actions and "political" actions. A veto is a political action, the same as passing a bill is. Holding a press conference to tell the world that you are going to veto a bill is an even more political action (if there are degrees of "political-ness" an action can have ). It's the same situation.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by tie 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I can't follow your distinction between "actual" actions and "political" actions. A veto is a political action, the same as passing a bill is. Holding a press conference to tell the world that you are going to veto a bill is an even more political action (if there are degrees of "political-ness" an action can have ). It's the same situation.

Maybe I can explain a bit further.

An action is purely political when it serves no purpose except to either further one's own political standing or hurt somebody else's. Frankly, I wouldn't say Bush's veto seems calculated for either of these purposes. I think Bush honestly believes we ought to still be in Iraq. At any rate, it definitely has the actual effect of stopping Congress from setting a deadline for withdrawal.

Congress passing the bill had no real effect. They knew the bill would be vetoed, and thus they couldn't have even hoped it would have a real effect. The bill was not passed to accomplish any goal. It was just for appearances, to give them an opportunity to vilify Bush. That's what I mean when I say they're playing political football with our soldiers' lives.

[hyteckit]

VP Cheney admitting Pres. Bush is playing politics with our troops lives. How wonderful.

Cheney, Democrats spar over Iraq bill - Yahoo! News

Our troops are going on 3rd and 4th tours. National guards are being called in for duty. Our army is stretch thin. They are going to break soon. The longer they stay, the more danger they are in. We need to withdraw our troops soon. Can't go on for another 1-2 years.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

VP Cheney admitting Pres. Bush is playing politics with our troops lives. How wonderful.

Cheney, Democrats spar over Iraq bill - Yahoo! News

That's not exactly what Cheney says in that article. Cheney says that the Democrats are playing politics, and Bush is calling them on it. Essentially, he agrees with me for once: Bush is being sincere, while Congress isn't.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's not exactly what Cheney says in that article. Cheney says that the Democrats are playing politics, and Bush is calling them on it. Essentially, he agrees with me for once: Bush is being sincere, while Congress isn't.

Sincere about what? Sincere about keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely? Keeping them on 6 and 7 tours? Keeping them on tour for 2-3 years?

What Cheney said is Pres. Bush are willing to bet that Democrats will bend to the President's wishes because Democrats wouldn't dare leave our soldiers without funding even though the Pres. Bush would. Pres. Bush already go the funding he needed for the troops. If Pres. Bush vetos the bill, the troops won't get the funding. So, it's Pres. Bush who is the one willing to play chicken with our troops lives. Pres. Bush is telling the Democrats "either you bend to my ways or our troops won't get funding. You Democrats might have pass a bill to give our troops funding, but I won't pass it unless to bend to my ways. I'm willing to bet on that cause I don't care if our troops get funding. I only care about getting my way."

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Pres. Bush is willing to bet that Democrats will bend to the President's wishes because Democrats wouldn't dare leave our soldiers without funding even though the Pres. Bush would. Pres. Bush already go the funding he needed for the troops. If Pres. Bush vetos the bill, the troops won't get the funding. So, it's Pres. Bush who is the one willing to play chicken with our troops lives. Pres. Bush is telling the Democrats "either you bend to my ways or our troops won't get funding.

well, that interpretation is delusional and outright dumb.

What is happening is that Congress is trying to dictate terms by which the military in Iraq carries out its mission through indirect action by attaching conditions to the money. That is highly questionable.

Congress can allocate or deny funds. Under the War Powers Act (which is questionably constitutional) they may even be able to initiate a withdrawal of troops. But they can not dictate military actions once troops are on the ground. That would be a direct infringement of the rights of the executive branch, and we all know how much you guys like to talk about the Constitution even though you are not clear of the implications of the text.

If Congress does not approve of the course of action the President takes with the military they have options available to them. One of those options was not meant to be blackmailing the Commander in Chief to follow a plan of action he disapproves of by adding strings to the money. There's no requirement that the President capitulates to their demands and allow that bill to pass into law if it contradicts his strategy.

The president can tell the military what do. Congress can only approve or disapprove and then allow them stay there or not.The two bodies of government do not have the same type of control over the military and the Constitution never meant them to have it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Sincere about what? Sincere about keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely? Keeping them on 6 and 7 tours? Keeping them on tour for 2-3 years?

Sincere that he believes the troops need to be there.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What Cheney said is Pres. Bush are willing to bet that Democrats will bend to the President's wishes because Democrats wouldn't dare leave our soldiers without funding even though the Pres. Bush would.

What Cheney said is that Congress knows it can't force a withdrawal of troops with the underhanded methods it's trying, and once they have out their tantrum, they'll have to take a more reasonable approach. Cheney is right.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Pres. Bush already go the funding he needed for the troops. If Pres. Bush vetos the bill, the troops won't get the funding. So, it's Pres. Bush who is the one willing to play chicken with our troops lives. Pres. Bush is telling the Democrats "either you bend to my ways or our troops won't get funding. You Democrats might have pass a bill to give our troops funding, but I won't pass it unless to bend to my ways. I'm willing to bet on that cause I don't care if our troops get funding. I only care about getting my way."

That's a completely unrealistic way of looking at the situation. I have trouble believing that you're even sincere. This is the same sort of retarded crap where somebody writes up a library bill, but they attach a rider that makes child molestation legal, so then when their opponent votes against it, they can go, "My opponent hates libraries!"

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

well, that interpretation is delusional and outright dumb.

What is happening is that Congress is trying to dictate terms by which the military in Iraq carries out its mission through indirect action by attaching conditions to the money. That is highly questionable.

Congress can allocate or deny funds. Under the War Powers Act (which is questionably constitutional) they may even be able to initiate a withdrawal of troops. But they can not dictate military actions once troops are on the ground. That would be a direct infringement of the rights of the executive branch, and we all know how much you guys like to talk about the Constitution even though you are not clear of the implications of the text.

If Congress does not approve of the course of action the President takes with the military they have options available to them. One of those options was not meant to be blackmailing the Commander in Chief to follow a plan of action he disapproves of by adding strings to the money. There's no requirement that the President capitulates to their demands and allow that bill to pass into law if it contradicts his strategy.

The president can tell the military what do. Congress can only approve or disapprove and then allow them stay there or not.The two bodies of government do not have the same type of control over the military and the Constitution never meant them to have it.

You're not making any sense. You said:

1. Congress has the right to allocate and deny funds.
2. Congress may even be able to initiate a withdrawal of troops.

But they can't allocate funds with a timetable for withdrawal of troops? Eh? So what you are saying is that Congress just past a bill that is unconstitutional. Wow, great. Pres. Bush doesn't have to veto it after all cause it unconstitutional.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So what you are saying is that Congress just past a bill that is unconstitutional. Wow, great. Pres. Bush doesn't have to veto it after all cause it unconstitutional.

Would you mind explaining how that's supposed to work? Bush is supposed to sign a bill because it's unconstitutional?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Sincere that he believes the troops need to be there.


What Cheney said is that Congress knows it can't force a withdrawal of troops with the underhanded methods it's trying, and once they have out their tantrum, they'll have to take a more reasonable approach. Cheney is right.


That's a completely unrealistic way of looking at the situation. I have trouble believing that you're even sincere. This is the same sort of retarded crap where somebody writes up a library bill, but they attach a rider that makes child molestation legal, so then when their opponent votes against it, they can go, "My opponent hates libraries!"

Congress isn't required to fund the war. If congress can't reach an agreement with the Pres. Bush on the War Fund Bill, there won't be any funds for our troops. Guess who suffers? It's our troops. Guess what will happen? Immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Yes, Pres. Bush is playing politics with our troops.

I think it's a god thing that Congress has a time-table attach to the bill. I totally agree with it. Without a timetable, US will be bankrupt before we reach our goals in Iraq. 4 years and not much have been accomplished. More lives can be saved at home with all the money wasted in Iraq.

Most reasonable approach is to attach a timetable to the fund bill. We can't keep funding the war until we go bankrupt and start drafting Americans to the war. National guards are already being called for war duty.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Would you mind explaining how that's supposed to work? Bush is supposed to sign a bill because it's unconstitutional?

Why would Pres. Bush have to sign or veto a bill that is unconstitutional?

[tie]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Congress isn't required to fund the war. If congress can't reach an agreement with the Pres. Bush on the War Fund Bill, there won't be any funds for our troops. Guess who suffers? It's our troops. Guess what will happen? Immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Yes, Pres. Bush is playing politics with our troops.

I think it's a god thing that Congress has a time-table attach to the bill. I totally agree with it. Without a timetable, US will be bankrupt before we reach our goals in Iraq. 4 years and not much have been accomplished. More lives can be saved at home with all the money wasted in Iraq.

I agree. Actually, though, I might be happy if Congress just required in the funding bill that Bush come up with a strategy for winning in Iraq other than "stay the course." I guess that's too much to ask, but it is really wrong for Americans to be dying when their commander-in-chief can't be bothered to come up with a decent strategy.

Which is worse, that their is a minor, highly debatable Constitutional quibble, or that thousands of Americans and Iraqis die unnecessarily? I'm not conceding that there is a Constitutional problem here at all, but even if there were -- there are hundreds of thousands of people dead because of this idiotic war. Get some perspective.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

But they can't allocate funds with a timetable for withdrawal of troops? Eh? l.

No, but they can futilely try. Their power over the military is black and white.
They can empower to the president to keep the military in past the 90 day mark or they can ask for the troops to be recalled immediately. That is the depth of their power with that regard. There is no other choices they have available to them. With funding and military involvement they have only "yes or no" options open to them.

You can't take part of one congressional ability and combine it with parts of another to create a new power.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why would Pres. Bush have to sign or veto a bill that is unconstitutional?

First off, for anything to have to be found unconstitutional it has to go to the supreme court. There are a myriad of ways for an unconstitutional law, bill, etc., to be passed and even used before it overturned. Like the line item veto was. But if it is used and it is unconstitutional it will be overturned. Its a process.

But to make it simple for you, he can veto anything he wants. He doesn't have to consult with any other body of govt to do that. It is his right and it is check and balance on Congress.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Congress isn't required to fund the war. If congress can't reach an agreement with the Pres. Bush on the War Fund Bill, there won't be any funds for our troops. Guess who suffers? It's our troops. Guess what will happen? Immediate withdrawl from Iraq.

No.
Its like passing the budget. The bill is sent back over and over again to committee until they can come up with a version that the President will sign or a version that will have such unanimous support within Congress that they will have enough votes to overturn a veto.
It is not with the President that they have to compromise with it is amongst themselves.

No.
It is not what will happen.
Either the President can recall the troops at his discretion and under his terms - OR -
congress can recall the troops unilaterally. Congress sets no terms, conditions, or timeline as they do not fall in within the hierarchy of command of the military. The troops stay where they are and do their job as commanded. It is not like you at a hotel where they boot you out if your credit card is declined.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I think it's a god thing that Congress has a time-table attach to the bill. I totally agree with it.
Most reasonable approach is to attach a timetable to the fund bill.

It doesn't matter what you agree with. You have proven you don't understand the enumerated powers. What you are arguing should be done is stupid as it over reaches the abilities and rights of Congress.

Checks and balances..... You loved them before but don't seem to understand what they entail.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

No, but they can futilely try. Their power over the military is black and white.
They can empower to the president to keep the military in past the 90 day mark or they can ask for the troops to be recalled immediately. That is the depth of their power with that regard. There is no other choices they have available to them. With funding and military involvement they have only "yes or no" options open to them.

You can't take part of one congressional ability and combine it with parts of another to create a new power.

As you're so fond of saying, that's one of dumbest statements I've ever heard. Everything is not as black and white as you'd like to believe it is.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...es/fpolicy.htm

The United States Constitution divides foreign policy powers between the President and the Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy. This report reviews and illustrates 12 basic ways that the United States can make foreign policy. The practices illustrated in this report indicate that making foreign policy is a complex process, and that the support of both branches is required for a strong and effective U.S. foreign policy. For a detailed discussion of how war-making powers are shared, see War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance.

Summary

The United States Constitution divides the foreign policy powers between the President and Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy.

This report identifies and illustrates 12 basic ways to make U.S. foreign policy. The President or the executive branch can make foreign policy through:

1) -- responses to foreign events
2) -- proposals for legislation
3) -- negotiation of international agreements
4) -- policy statements
5) -- policy implementation
6) -- independent action.

In nearly all of these circumstances, Congress can either support the President's approach or seek to change it. In the case of independent Presidential action, it may be very difficult to change policy in the short term; in the case of a legislative proposal by the executive branch or treaties and international agreements submitted to the Senate or Congress for approval, Congress has a decisive voice. In most cases Congress supports the President, but it often makes significant modifications in his initiatives in the process of approving them.

Congress can make foreign policy through:

1) -- resolutions and policy statements
2) -- legislative directives
3) -- legislative pressure
4) -- legislative restrictions/funding denials
5) -- informal advice
6) -- congressional oversight.

In these circumstances, the executive branch can either support or seek to change congressional policies as it interprets and carries out legislative directives and restrictions, and decides when and whether to adopt proposals and advice.

The practices illustrated in this report indicate that making U.S. foreign policy is a complex process, and the support of both branches is required for a strong and effective U.S. foreign policy.

[Chuckit]

None of that contradicts anything Captain Obvious has said. That most emphatically does not say Congress has the Constitutional or legal power to command the military (and even if it did, that document is not binding and would simply be in error).

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

As you're so fond of saying, that's one of dumbest statements I've ever heard. Everything is not as black and white as you'd like to believe it is.


Something someone else with a PhD wrote.

Well, its not dumb because you didn't write it. It would take you far too long to string anything that coherent together. But it is pretty goddamned irrelevant since its at best a tangent of the topic at hand. So my guess is you didn't really understand what you quoted.

You also haven't read what I posted.

1) We are discussing which branch has the power to dictate the military's actions and movements once they are in play. As i stated long LONG ago in this thread Congress under the War Powers Act can try and pull the troops out. What they can not do is say, "make the army do this and make it happen like that and I will give you the money to do it Mr. President otherwise you are SOL on the cash."

2) As I also said before the War Powers Act may not be constitutional. This is not my opinion but rather that of several highly respected Constitutional scholars. It is of their informed judgment that should Congress ever try and use the full breadth of the powers it would create a situation that if contested by the Executive Branch the Supreme Court would have to decide if the War Powers Act is even constitutionally valid. There's strong arguments (which you wouldn't grasp) that say its not.

The only instance of Congress forcing a military deadline on a President was in 93. Clinton A) wanted to get out of Somalia and B) didn't challenge congress on the issue. Every other use of the WPA has been limited and also used only in the scope of preventing an expansion of the reach of a preexisting authorization. None of it has been challenged and that is a very important detail.

Since it hasn't been challenged yet the War Powers Act stands with a big asterisk next to it until it happens just like a lot of other laws that have been overturned did.

So yes, smart people will argue that foreign policy is a joint venture by two of the branches of government and they will talk about Congress' influence and not implementing the presidents initiatives preventing his goals from succeeding. But we weren't talking about something that broad.

"We" were talking about a very narrow use of Congressional legislation to dictate the military's actions. Since Congress already approved our involvement in Iraq and has not removed it they can't do much more until they change their minds. None of your little quoted text applies to this part of the discussion. Congress can do many things but they cannot surpass the rights of the Executive Branch.

And for future reference: making text bold only succeeds in allowing it to stand out, it does not magically make it relevant to the discussion.

[hyteckit]

Like Captain Obvious said, "under the War Powers Act (which is questionably constitutional) they may even be able to initiate a withdrawal of troops."

Both House and Senate pass is a bill to initiate the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. It's also gives the President enough funding to safely withdraw our troops. Nothing there is unconstitutional. So it's either safely withdraw our troops with the funding the House and Senate pass or withdraw our troops without the necessary funding if Pres. Bush vetos the bill. Either way, Congress has already agree to withdraw our troops.

[Captain Obvious]

Its like trying to explain things to a retarded and deaf eight year old.
Congress did not pass a bill to withdraw the troops. They passed a funding bill that tells the president to do it. There is a difference.

hyteckit you don't understand the things that are explained to you so just stop talking. Everything you have said is wrong. It does not matter if you agree or think what is happening is right, you are still wrong.

This is not a matter of opinion, its a fact.

You have a comprehension problem that requires actual help from a licensed educator.

[hyteckit]

Like I said, Congress passed a bill that sets a timeline for the Pres. Bush to withdraw our troops, which they are constitutionally allow to by War Powers Act.

It's not a mater of opinion, it's a fact.

If you don't comprehend this, I would recommend the same advice you gave me.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Like I said, Congress passed a bill that sets a timeline for the Pres. Bush to withdraw our troops, which they are constitutionally allow to by War Powers Act.

It's not a mater of opinion, it's a fact.

No.
You are wrong, again.
You do not understand or know what you are talking about.

*The WPA does not give Congress the power or authority to set timelines the with conditions.

*The WPA does not give Congress the power or authority to force the president to tell the military what to do.

*You did not know what the WPA was much less what it authorizes the branches of govt to do until I brought up the topic.

Lastly, Congress did not use the War Powers Act. They used a funding bill to make a pretend timeline which provides even less authority than anything you claim.

You just really need to sit down and keep your uneducated opinions to yourself because you just look foolish.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

No.
You are wrong, again.
You do not understand or know what you are talking about.

*The WPA does not give Congress the power or authority to set timelines the with conditions.

*The WPA does not give Congress the power or authority to force the president to tell the military what to do.

*You did not know what the WPA was much less what it authorizes the branches of govt to do until I brought up the topic.

Lastly, Congress did not use the War Powers Act. They used a funding bill to make a pretend timeline which provides even less authority than anything you claim.

You just really need to sit down and keep your uneducated opinions to yourself because you just look foolish.

You are wrong again.

Congress has the power to fund the war, does it not?

Congress has the power to withdraw our troops from war, does it not?

What law specifically forbids Congress from setting timelines for withdrawal when Congress has the power to withdraw troops?

Show me specify in the law that forbids Congress to set timelines for withdrawal when Congress has the power to withdraw troops? Are you really serious that Congress can't set timelines? Wouldn't that be retarded because that would make that power useless?

Of course Congress has the power to set time lines for withdrawal if Congress has the power to call for a withdrawal from War.

[hyteckit]

Congress has spoken.

The buck stops here. No more blank checks for the Iraq War. Time to withdraw from the Iraq war and bring our troops home.

Two options for Pres. Bush

1. Safe withdrawal from Iraq with the funds provided to Pres. Bush
2. Force to withdraw from Iraq because of the funds veto by Pres. Bush

Either way, it's a withdrawal from the Iraq War. Congress has spoken and it's for Pres. Bush to decide which option he will choose. Pres. Bush can play politics and try change Congress's mind on withdrawal, but it would at the risk of our troops lives. Pres. Bush is no longer getting the blank check he wants.

[hyteckit]

I guess only Captain Obvious gets its because he is not willing to accept reality. No one else gets it except for Captain Obvious. Here's is someone who agrees with me. I like it when someone agrees with me.

End This Filthy War :: Opinion :: Philadelphia City Paper :: Philadelphia Arts, Restaurants, Music, Movies, Jobs, Classifieds, Blogs

[Wiskedjak]

Seems to me the only reason that conservatives don't like this move by the US Congress is because they can't call them "bleeding heart liberals" over it. The bill from Congress doesn't call for the US to cut-and-run from Iraq; instead, it calls for an orderly withdrawal that encourages the Iraqi government to stand up for itself (something which has been lacking in the Iraqi occupation) and gives it the time to do so.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Seems to me the only reason that conservatives don't like this move by the US Congress is because they can't call them "bleeding heart liberals" over it. The bill from Congress doesn't call for the US to cut-and-run from Iraq; instead, it calls for an orderly withdrawal that encourages the Iraqi government to stand up for itself (something which has been lacking in the Iraqi occupation) and gives it the time to do so.

FYI, I am a Republican, but I've opposed the war since before it even started. I really have no interest in slamming the Democrats — I wish they were better than the Republican Party, which is in a sorry state thanks to Bush et al. However, I do think Captain Obvious is right.

[hyteckit]

What Captain Obvious is saying is Congress cannot enact on the powers given to them by War Powers Act if it is tied to a war fund bill.

Next Captain Obvious is going to say Congress cannot enact on the powers given to them by the War Powers Act if it is any other day besides Jan 1st.

Captain Obvious says:

*The WPA does not give Congress the power to withdraw troops unless the bill is passed on Jan. 1st.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What Captain Obvious is saying is Congress cannot enact on the powers given to them by War Powers Act if it is tied to a war fund bill.

They do not have he power to tell the President to initiate a phased withdrawal on such-and-such a timetable but leaving behind troops for such-and-such purposes. If you believe the War Powers Act gives them that authority, please, show me where.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Show me specify in the law that forbids Congress to set timelines for withdrawal when Congress has the power to withdraw troops?

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 139 (1866)

This is why there is a J.D. after my name and the only people who show you respect for the breadth of your knowledge are individuals who work at McDonalds.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Its like trying to explain things to a retarded and deaf eight year old.

You have a comprehension problem that requires actual help from a licensed educator.

You just really need to sit down and keep your uneducated opinions to yourself because you just look foolish.

This is why there is a J.D. after my name and the only people who show you respect for the breadth of your knowledge are individuals who work at McDonalds.

Stupid insults make you look stupid yourself. Grow up.

Meanwhile, 171 people died in Baghdad today.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 139 (1866)

This is why there is a J.D. after my name and the only people who show you respect for the breadth of your knowledge are individuals who work at McDonalds.

My dog has a JD. I don't care. You are adding arbitrary restrictions to the War Powers Act when they are not there. I have a JD in dog rights, doesn't I know anything about cat rights. Just cause I have a doctors degree that allows me to look at feet, doesn't me I can do brain surgery.

So mister JD, what are the guidelines and parameters for which Congress can enact the powers granted by the War Powers Act? Show me specifically where the guidelines are set and under what conditions? You are claiming Congress's call for a withdraw if there is a timeline attach, is unconstitutional. Show me where such restrictions are mentioned?

Congress has the power to fund the war. Congress has the power to call for a withdrawal from war.

[hyteckit]

Page 71 U.S. 2, 139

Congress has the power not only to raise and support and govern armies but to declare war. It has, therefore, the power to provide by law for carrying on war. This power necessarily extends to all legislation essential to the prosecution of war with vigor and success, except such as interferes with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns. That power and duty belong to the President as commander-in-chief. Both these powers are derived from the Constitution, but neither is defined by that instrument. Their extent must be determined by their nature, and by the principles of our institutions.

The power to make the necessary laws is in Congress; the power to execute in the President. Both powers imply many subordinate and auxiliary powers. Each includes all authorities essential to its due exercise. But neither can the President, in war more than in peace, intrude upon the proper authority of Congress, nor Congress upon the proper authority of the President. Both are servants of the people, whose will is expressed in the fundamental law. Congress cannot direct the conduct of campaigns, nor can the President,

Congress has the authority to call for a withdrawal. Congress has the authority to fund the war. Base on those two authorities guarantee by the constitution, congress has the right to pass the War Fund Bill which calls for a withdrawal from war as well as fund the troops during the withdrawal. If you are claiming you can't fund the war and call for a withdrawal at the same time, show me specifically where their authority is denied by the constitution.

Stop adding arbitrary restrictions that aren't there.

[Captain Obvious]

you are so dense:

Congress has the power not only to raise and support and govern armies but to declare war. It has, therefore, the power to provide by law for carrying on war. This power necessarily extends to all legislation essential to the prosecution of war with vigor and success, except such as interferes with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns. That power and duty belong to the President as commander-in-chief

There are your restrictions genius.

And the president does not infringe on the powers of Congress as his power of veto overrides this bill's passage unless Congress has the number of votes to over ride it. Which they do not.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 139 (1866)

This is why there is a J.D. after my name and the only people who show you respect for the breadth of your knowledge are individuals who work at McDonalds.

That explains your arrogance and disdain for those "lower" than you. Now I see it, it's so.................what's the word I'm looking for.........ah yes, obvious.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

you are so dense:

Congress has the power not only to raise and support and govern armies but to declare war. It has, therefore, the power to provide by law for carrying on war. This power necessarily extends to all legislation essential to the prosecution of war with vigor and success, except such as interferes with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns. That power and duty belong to the President as commander-in-chief

Based on how you are interpreting this line, I think calling for a withdrawal could be interpreted as "interfering with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns"

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

That explains your arrogance and disdain for those "lower" than you. Now I see it, it's so.................what's the word I'm looking for.........ah yes, obvious.

And yet......... everything I have said thusfar in this thread has not been proven wrong. Do you want to get back to that little ditty you quoted above and tell me how it applies?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

you are so dense:

Congress has the power not only to raise and support and govern armies but to declare war. It has, therefore, the power to provide by law for carrying on war. This power necessarily extends to all legislation essential to the prosecution of war with vigor and success, except such as interferes with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns. That power and duty belong to the President as commander-in-chief

There are your restrictions genius.

And the president does not infringe on the powers of Congress as his power of veto overrides this bill's passage unless Congress has the number of votes to over ride it. Which they do not.

Except it doesn't. Setting a timeline for withdrawal is a power belonging to Congress. Congress is telling when our troops must be withdrawn from Iraq, not how our troops are withdrawn. How our troops is withdrawn from Iraq is left to the President.

Your argument is saying Congress must fund the President indefinitely cause with-holding funds interferes with command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns.

[hyteckit]

Same as above.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Based on how you are interpreting this line, I think calling for a withdrawal could be interpreted as "interfering with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns"

Everyone else who is trying to debate me look at this.

That is an intelligent and poignant remark. He read the things above, thought about them, and came to a conclusion to question the remarks. He is not dumb.

Wiskedjak, you are right. It could be.
Which is why the legal validity of the War Powers Act is still in question.
Since the full power of the act has not been used and then contested it has not gone before the courts. It may very well be unconstitutional. It is pretty well regarded by lawyers that there are one or two blatantly unconstitutional clauses in the act which violate the separation of powers but what is unknown is if that negates the act as a whole. The nitty gritty of it has yet to be resolved and picking it apart to figure out which parts are valid and which are illegal is left up to the Supreme Court.

Its interesting that when Congress has tried to use it and past presidents have summarily ignored its use against them that no one in Congress tried to take it before the Court to resolve the issue. Sort of hints to what they think will happen if the judges are forced to rule.

[hyteckit]

Not funding the war could be interpreted as "interfering with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns."

Guess Congress has no power but to fund the President indefinitely. Can't call for a withdrawal. Can't interfere with the conduct of campaigns by with-holding funds that is needed for the war.

[hyteckit]

Captain Obvious.

So what you are saying is:

Congress has no right under the constitution to call for a withdrawal.

Congress has no right under the constitution to stop funding a war.

Because both cases could be interpreted as "interfering with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns."

[Captain Obvious]

What i am saying is all right there above.

You don't have to infer anything, its right up there in the complete text.
If you want to make your own conclusions then that is up to you but those are your words not mine. I was quite clear on each point.
Anything else is you putting words in my mouth.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

What i am saying is all right there above.

You don't have to infer anything, its right up there in the complete text.
If you want to make your own conclusions then that is up to you but those are your words not mine. I was quite clear on each point.
Anything else is you putting words in my mouth.

I'm asking for your legal opinion of the law.

Withholding funds for the war could be interpreted as "interfering with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns", could it not?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Withholding funds for the war could be interpreted as "interfering with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns", could it not?

Since the ruling specifically addresses legislation, withholding funds (i.e., lack of legislation) wouldn't logically seem to fall under that heading. I'm not a lawyer, but I really doubt the court meant to suggest that the President can force Congress to pass specific laws.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Since the ruling specifically addresses legislation, withholding funds (i.e., lack of legislation) wouldn't logically seem to fall under that heading. I'm not a lawyer, but I really doubt the court meant to suggest that the President can force Congress to pass specific laws.

Well, that means Pres. Bush will have to withdraw our troops one way or another. So if President Bush vetos the bill, he would end up having to withdraw our troops sooner than later.

[hyteckit]

So Captain Obvious went from saying:

Congress has the power to recall our troops

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...s/#post3351667

Congress has the power to put it to a vote and choose to recall the troops. It’s a pretty straightforward process. This passive aggressive bullshit about bringing them home by withholding funds is a coward’s way out.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...s/#post3353296

Congress under the War Powers Act can recall the troops if they take it to a vote.
With Democrats in power they can initiate a vote. They have not done so.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post3357156

The president can tell the military what do. Congress can only approve or disapprove and then allow them stay there or not.

To:

Congress don't have a legal authority to force the President to withdraw our troops

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post3359579

It may very well be unconstitutional.

Captain Obvious, make up your mind. Does congress has the authority to withdraw our troops or not?

You first said Congress was cowardly because they didn't pass a bill just to recall our troops, even they have the legal right to do so. But instead they went the cowardly way by withholding funds. Then you said they don't have the legal authority to recall the troops. Make up you mind buddy. Law school didn't do much for you. Multiple contradictions.

So what Congress have to do if the want to Iraq war to end without playing politics?