[Sandy]

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.

[jveritas]

Sandy

The President send the budget to Congress that includes funds for the troops in Iraq. If the Congress refused the funds the President can veto the budget which will lead to government shut down. In case of government shut down only essential employees can be paid. The troops will be part of the “essential government employees”.

Anyway, none of this will happen because the democrats will not get the votes neither in the House nor in the Senate to cut the funds for the troops.

[TeleStraightShooter]

Yes it's obvious that despite shifting the conversation from current constitutional law to fictional future constitutional law you were advocating "the President can't command the armed forces without the funds to do so".

Constitutionally speaking the POTUS will always command the armed forces with or without a congressional blessing.

That said, I do believe you were advocating the legislative branch can restrict how the executive branch defends our Republic.

Was the Boland amendment ruled constitutional?, or was it, along with the Troung case on FISA powers, ruled to be legislative overreach of constitutional powers?