Putting aside for the minute whether or not such a resolution would be constitutional (it doesn't pass the smell test, but I'm not an expert), some oppose Kennedy's idea because it gives Congress too much power.
The idea of having Congress micromanage this war — or any war — is enough to make me shiver. Should the bill become law, it would instantaneously raise the issue of where to draw the line: what presidential actions would require approval? Would the president be able, on his own, to increase an American force level by x percent, but not by y percent? Would there be certain mitigating circumstances that would trump the requirement for Congressional approval? If so, what would they be?
Kennedy’s proposal is an extraordinarily bad idea.
According to the Moderate Voice, Talk Left agrees.
But even if such a veto could be overridden, the law would be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, impinging on the President's power as Commander in Chief in Wartime. In order to act in the manner Senator Kennedy wishes, the Congress must strip the President of the power the Congress granted him to wage war in Iraq.
Kennedy argues that Congress authorized President Bush to fight a war against Saddam Hussein, not to get involved in a civil war. This seems like a shaky argument, to me, since ousting Saddam (at least, according to war opponents) wasn't the end of the war. Remember the sneering about "Mission Accomplished"? How can you sneer at that, then say what has happened since Saddam's overthrow isn't part of the same war.
The Talk Left piece is an interesting bit of lawyerly argument about Kennedy's resolution and I recommend it highly.
"Putting aside for the minute whether or not such a resolution would be constitutional (it doesn't pass the smell test, but I'm not an expert),"
ReplyDeleteThat’s right, you are not an expert, nor do you try to avail yourself of any knowledge about the Constitutional rights of Congress before questioning the constitutionality of Kennedy's legislation.
Furthermore, you say you’ll put constitutionality aside for a minute but you never come back to it. Ok, so you start by discrediting the legislation without any basis in fact.
Congress controls the purse, war authorization and they are responsible for executive oversight.
Kennedy argues that Congress authorized President Bush to fight a war against Saddam Hussein [and to secure his weapons of mass destruction.] Kennedy argues we have accomplished both of these authorized objectives and that the war we are fighting now is very different than the war Congress authorized. Kennedy argues we are now providing security for a civil war, at the cost of American lives and treasure. Kennedy further says we will the fund the Iraq war at current levels but before the president escalates this war, he must come to congress and lay out his plan.
The American people and the Iraq Study Group have all spoken clearly on the issue, in the recent elections and in current poll numbers. The President seems to be heading in the exactly the opposite direction.
The situation has been described as grave and deteriorating. It has also been said the problems in Iraq cannot be solved with US military. In fact, the President's own generals have counseled against escalation – whereupon he recently replaced the top two.
Finally, why bring up Ted hic Kennedy’s drinking? George Bush has his own daemons when it comes to alcohol.
1. I bring up Kennedy's trouble with alcohol because it is pervasive and continuous, unlike any problems you insinuate the president had with it.
ReplyDelete2. I acknowledge I don't have constitutional expertise, nor could I find anyone on the internet who discussed the constitutionality of his resolution. It doesn't pass the smell test, however, because it completely shackled the president's constitutional powers as the commander in chief.
3. Read the post from the Moderate Voice where he discusses the fact that Kennedy's interpretation of the Congressional authorization for war is cramped as well as inaccurate. The authorization gave the president BROAD POWERS to engage in this war, and whether Kennedy likes it or not, that authorization includes what we are doing in Iraq right now.
4. Many Americans said they were against the war as it was being fought, but of those, many thought more troops are needed. We've had larger numbers there and when we did, the violence was less. It's a ridiculous by-product of the age that we want to run wars by democracy. This is the president's decision to make, not the generals or moonbats or politicians at home. He had generals who said this wouldn't work and he fired them. So what? He's trying a different approach with someone more willing to try his approach. That's his prerogative.