Here buddy, I'll bring you in from the dark. In post #328 you alluded to a fictional
future legislative act {
If we forbid him to spend money on something,} to retort jveritas's position that
currently the POTUS can legally allocate emergency funding from anywhere in the budget to fund the troops. You moved the goalposts from current law being discusses to fictional future law. And you did rather seamlessly whilst admitting your previous statement was flawed. Yhat's why I dropped you compliment.
Also, considering the future alignment of congress the people just elected, any such fictional future law to starve our troops out of Iraq would require veto override and that would take 67 Senators. That dog don't hunt.
Here buddy, I'll bring you in from the dark. In post #328 you alluded to a fictional future legislative act {If we forbid him to spend money on something,} to retort jveritas's position that currently the POTUS can legally allocate emergency funding from anywhere in the budget to fund the troops. You moved the goalposts from current law being discusses to fictional future law. Here buddy, I'll bring you in from the dark.
What I said was:
The President can't command the armed forces without the funds to do so. Without money, he'll have no choice but to bring them home.
followed by:
If we forbid him to spend money on something, then he can't spend money on it.
That's not moving the "goalposts from current law being discussed to fictional future law". I'm talking about *Constitutional* law in both comments (in reply to jveritas's comment regarding what the *Constitution* says), and I'm (rather obviously) saying essentially the same thing both times.