Posted on 01/30/2007 5:30:17 PM PST by Flavius
(AXcess News) Washington - The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee met Tuesday to figure out how to constitutionally block President George W. Bush's Iraq plan with the goal of curtailing additional troop deployment to the worn-torn Middle Eastern nation and limit the U.S. military's conduct in the war itself, which could include troop withdrawals.
While Committee Democrats have made it known that they disagree with the President's troop surge, Republican member Sen. Arlen Specter (Penn.) has joined fellow Judicial Committee members in backing the Senate members move to cut Bush's authority. "This is a joint and shared responsibility," said Specter.
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) who chaired the Committee hearing said that he would soon introduce legislation that would curb spending within six months, in effect, forcing a U.S. troop withdrawal.
In an opening speech to the Senate Judiciary Committee Feingold took the opportunity to once again play the same tune Democrats have sang since winning midterm elections last year giving them control of both houses of Congress - Americans are tired of Bush's Iraq war and want it to end.
"The only poll that really matters is the one held on election day. On November 7, 2006, we had such a poll, and all across this country, the American people expressed their opinion on the war in Iraq in the most significant and meaningful way possible - they voted," crowed Feingold.
As hearing chair, Feingold quoted Article I of the Constitution which states, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law," as the groundwork for the Judiciary Committee's plan to cut Bush off from funding the Iraq war.
Tuesday was not the first time Feingold has had it in for Bush, the Wisconsin Democrat introduced a Resolution to the Senate last March calling for the censure of President Bush over his wiretapping and eavesdropping progam against Americans. At the time, Feingold's efforts fell on deaf ears with both houses of Congress controlled by the GOP, but now that fellow Dems hold the reins, it's a different matter all together.
While Feingold cited Constitutional interpretation Tuesday, other lawmakers say the Democrats are giving the wrong message to the world on the United States' position in backing up its military plays.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said the Judiciary Committee was "sending the wrong message" to U.S. allies and that Congress "must consider more than our policy objectives."
Following President Bush's State of the Union address last week, Sen. Hatch said, "The President reiterated his new course of action in Iraq. I believe it is an intelligent approach, though there are no easy answers to this." Hatch also supported the President's request to increase the size of the U.S. military by 92,000 over the next five years. "This plan would help alleviate the strain on our overstretched military," stated Hatch.
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) spoke out against Sen. Hatch's viewpoint saying that news reports suggest that many of the U.S. military personnel being sent to Iraq are ill-equipped and under-trained.
Sen. Durbin suggested that Congress revisit why it entered into a war with Iraq in the first place. "By what authority do we continue this war?" Durbin asked.
While Senators Feingold and Durbin pushed Senate Committee members to weigh different means of cutting President Bush's troop surge, experts argue that many similarities lie between Vietnam and the Iraq war today, saying that many lives were needlessly lost when Congress pulled their support of then President Richard Nixon.
But legal experts argue that Feingold's tactic has substance, without consideration to historical actions in past wars, such as Vietnam. That Congress can "validly limit the President's use of force." So a resolution limiting the President's financial reach is not out of the realm of law Constitutionally.
The spineless ones plot.
bump
"This is a joint and shared responsibility," said Specter.
This is an outrageous statement. There is only one commander-in-chief and the constitution gives none of that authority to the Congress. We have an out-of-control, power mad Congress. While the media and Democrats, including a few RINO ass clowns like Specter have been claiming it is the president that is abusing his power, it is actually the U.S. Congress that is abusing its power and exceeding its authority. They are arrogant, full of themselves and out of control. They need to be slapped down and hard even if this means taking it to the courts.
The problem Feingold has is that the troops are a permanent army. If he cuts funding for the troops, we have to fire them. What he needs to do is find a way to write an appropriation that doesn't allow money to be spent in certain PLACES, which will be very difficult.
When we had a draft, it was easy to defund the draft. But now we have an all-volunteer army.
These are TRAITORS and it shows their lust for power and hate for the President come before the good of the country and our troops. Damn them to hell.
Of course, there isn't really a troop "surge". Bush simply sent the replacement troops early, and will move out the replaced troops late. Thus making an overlap.
No troops are in Iraq that weren't going there anyway.
I guess they see no "downside" to having 135,000 active duty troops really, really, pi$$ed at them.
These senators are going to get themselves unelected.
traitors all of them. this is a time of great need for our country and for these senators to play with the fortunes of our soldiers like it's a political football, it just is treasonous!!
Our President needs the help of the American people now most than ever. These politicos in Washington are not there to represent us but to grab power for themselves
If there is one thing I greatly fault this President it is his propensity to "do business" with backstabbing weasels like Scottish Law. He helps Scottish Law get elected and this is how he gets repaid.
If the senators try to interfere with his constitutional duties as commander in chief, President Bush should declare martial law and have them all arrested, and confined to Guantanamo until the end of hostilities.
1. How long has the first fully-elected government of Iraq been in office? ANSWER: 10 months. The cut and run crowd really likes to gieve democracy a chance, eh?
2. How long has Iraq had their first full elections? ANSWER: Just over a year ago, ditto the comment on question one.
3. How long has Iraq had their new constitution? ANSWER: About 15 months. How stable was the U. S. Government after its first 15 months?
4.How long has it been since Iraq had its first elected interim President? ANSWER: Less than two years, April 2005.
5. How long has it been since Iraq had its first multi-party election in over 50 years? ANSWER: Just over two years.
So Mr. Pull-Out-Now-Cut-and-Run Democrat, we can see how microscopic your commitment to Democracy really is. You're more concerned about being called a Democrat"ic" party than you are committed to Democracy. If this is a quagmire, then you don't have any sense of perspective, not to mention a sense of commitment.
- from another FR post today
I'd write to this ass if I thought it would do any good. The arrogance in the house of lords is sickening.
Actually Feingold has several problems. One being that this is unconstitutional, the second being that this will probably not make it out of committee because the Democrats do not want this on the floor.
Check out this article-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2478.html
"Feingold, a fierce war critic, will force Democrats to consider an option many consider politically suicidal: cutting off funds for the military campaign in Iraq. Democratic leaders have privately called on members to restrain from seeking any funding restrictions and focus instead on congressional resolutions condemning the Bush policy. The resolutions are nonbinding and therefore symbolic."
--So Mr. Pull-Out-Now-Cut-and-Run Democrat, we can see how microscopic your commitment to Democracy really is. You're more concerned about being called a Democrat"ic" party than you are committed to Democracy. --
Let's settle this once and for all. Their name is
DEMOCRETINS!
The traitors and defeatists have an absolute zero chance of succeeding. They cannot even pass a non binding resolution against President Bush strategy for victory. These clowns are way overrated, they have much less power than they and their media think they have.
I don't think these idiots realize they will be the first ones hit by the terrorists.
Like Rush said, they know the American people are not behind this. If the Rats had the polling data stating otherwise, they'd have done it. They won't dare. They are just flexing their muscles. Losers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.