Testing the Bounds of Power ....(Congress is on a collision course with the White House)

Military.com/AP ^ | January 30, 2007

[IrishMike]

WASHINGTON - The new Democratic-led Congress is on a collision course with the White House over how far lawmakers can or should go to stop the war in Iraq, a dispute that could test the bounds of the Constitution.

President Bush has insisted he won't back down on a decision to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq and will ignore any resolutions passed by Congress that state opposition to his plan. The Senate is expected to consider such a measure in coming days.

Some Democrats say Congress must consider tougher alternatives to force the president's hand, including cutting funding, capping the number of troops allowed in Iraq and setting an end date for the war.

"This Congress was never meant to be a rubber stamp," Sen. Barbara Boxer told her colleagues last week. "Read the Constitution. The Congress has the power to declare war. And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts."

Boxer has proposed a bill that would call for troops to come home in 180 days, allowing a minimum number to say behind to hunt down terrorists and train Iraqi security forces.

But many legal scholars and congressional Republicans say such legislation is not within Congress' power. The president has control of military forces, they say.

"Once Congress raises an army, it's his to command," said Robert Turner, a law professor at the University of Virginia who plans to testify Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But whether a president needs congressional approval to wage war is up for debate among many scholars. In recent decades, presidents have routinely bypassed Congress when deploying troops to fight. Not since World War II has Congress issued an official declaration of war, despite lengthy wars fought in Vietnam and Korea.

[IrishMike]

"People think Congress has to say OK to everything," But if that were true "that means every war we've fought since World War II is illegal."

[agere_contra]

And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts betray our allies and bug out.

[Jim Noble]

The antiwar Democrats can do three things (all Constitutional) to gain their ends.

They can repeal the AUMF. They can cut off the money. They can impeach Bush and Cheney.

Other than that, every second they spend on meaningless resolutions and encouraging the enemy to kill Americans is a scandal and a disgrace.

[Nailbiter]

ping for later read

[mathluv]

"that means every war we've fought since World War II is illegal."

And how many of them were started by dim presidents and ended by pubbie presidents?

Bring our troops home - - - - - from Bosnia and Kosovo.

[JZoback]

I'm sure McCain will find a way stab Bush in the back

[IrishMike]

I'm sure McCain will find a way stab Bush in the back
.
.
.
.
He's had an itch since 1999/2000

[rhombus]

An interesting read on declared and undeclared wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

[mathluv]

This is the last link there. Interesting reading.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

[Popman]

McCain has more than an itch.

He has a ego far too big for this country. As far as he is concerned Bush is a aberration in his overall plans