[CharlesWayneCT]

How could he answer it? Congress certainly has the power to pass a law ending a war. They can override a presidential veto.

But if that ever happened, it would have to go to the Supreme Court, where lawyers for the President, and lawyers for congress, would both spend thousands of hours researching the issue in detail, so they could present written briefs.

Then the supreme court would have oral arguments, where the lawyers would answer questions. And then the judges would do their own research, and talk to their fellow justices, and make a ruling.

How could Roberts possibly answer how he thinks about the question NOW? He can't say how he would rule in that case, or any case, not just because it is wrong, but because it would be silly to do so before having all the information.

[tcrlaf]

****Congress certainly has the power to pass a law ending a war. They can override a presidential veto.***

The ONLY power in ENDING a war that Congress has is in cutting off funding for it...

They must also vote to approve any peace treaties from that war...

If it simply ENDS, without a treaty, such as Korea, then Congress has no say in that decision...

[Mo1]

How could Roberts possibly answer how he thinks about the question NOW?

He can't .. but Leaky is trying to feel him out on how the USSC might handle such a case should it come before the Court

Remember .. Roberts is up for the Chief Justice job

[seamus]

Thank you for your response. Roberts did not say "Congress certainly has the power to pass a law ending a war." He did hint about a 2/3rds majority vote in Congress, but he was not specific about how that would work. I don't think it would be out of bounds for him to answer, simply and strictly, that Congress can "undeclare" a war and instruct the country on how that would happen, whether by 2/3rd majority vote or whatever.

The answer strikes me as a strict Constitutional question, although an obscure one. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they agreed -- nearly unanimously -- to give the commander-in-chief the authority to wage an open-ended war on terror, which is how it should be. Please don't interpret my comments as being sympathetic to those who want to end the war. I was just curious if, in the future, if Congress wearies of the fight, they pull out entirely from Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever the fight takes us. I guess once the Iraq war is over -- and for all intents and purposes, it really is -- we'll start pulling out (keeping troops there for lighter and lighter operations as Iraq gets its own forces up to snuff). And if we need to fight in, say, Yemen, the jungles of Indonesia, Iran, Syria, or other places, the president would have to go back to Congress for authorization of such an action.

But, then again, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, so I don't know for sure. Roberts does, and I'd liked to have heard a little more explanation.

[Political Junkie Too]

Congress certainly has the power to pass a law ending a war. They can override a presidential veto. But if that ever happened, it would have to go to the Supreme Court, where lawyers...

But what would foreign law have to say about our Congress overriding a President who is at war with them?

-PJ