From CNN: "Proposed war resolution may spark Constitutional showdown"
The White House has made it clear that it would oppose any move to rewrite Congress' 2002 authorization.
Whether Congress can impose such restriction will draw robust debate. Constitutional scholars disagree on whether Congress can dictate to a president when and how he can deploy troops or whether that would impinge on the president's authority as commander in chief.Oh really? I'm interested to know the names of these scholars who have discovered a clause in Constitution where executive power does not rest with the executive. But since Congress doesn't have the conviction to stop the war constitutionally (by cutting off funding) the Democrats need to extend their election position and make believe it's leadership. How feckless is this posturing? Here's one law professor in "Repeal of war authorization may create constitutional minefield":
But as lawmakers craft their latest Iraq strategy, they could be entering either a constitutional minefield or an exercise in futility
"I have never, ever heard of a declaration of war being taken away," Ruth Wedgwood, a Johns Hopkins University international law professor, said Friday. "It's certainly constitutionally ambitious, if not outrageous."And here's another law professor:
"If the issue came before the Supreme Court, my guess is the court would hold that Congress has the power to repeal the use of force just as it can repeal any other statute," said University of Virginia law professor Robert Turner. "However ... any such effort would have to be submitted to the president and could be vetoed."Forget the fact that any "do-over" legislation would be blocked in the Senate by a Republican filibuster or possibly a Lieberman flip. I wonder if the Democrats, who have a very good chance of capturing the White House in 2008, want to establish a precedent where Congress can restrict the powers of the commander-in-chief. The Founding Fathers set up this separation of power to prevent the legislative branch from interfering with executive power. If the Democrats feel the war is lost, they should find the courage to cut off funding and end American involvement in Iraq. Otherwise, they should stick to soundbites and shelve this Constitutional sham.
Extra - Kim Priestap on Wizbang: "It's disgraceful and dangerous what these Democrats want to do, and they must be stopped."
More - AJ Strata: "Democrats need a lesson on the US Constitution"
3 comments:
Rip Van Republican, waking up from his 6-year snooze:
"Oh, dear! Constitutional protections are in danger of being ignored! Stop! Stop!"
Thank you for posting this. I had heard about it on an all news station, and felt that it infringed upon a President's Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.
But Condoleezza Rice stating that Bush will defy war-related Congressional legislation at his pleasure? That's not "Constitutionally outrageous," just good ol' country hardball and strong leadership. Mmmm, tasty red Kool-Aid!
Post a Comment