This story is archived

Op Ed: The Purse Isn't Congress's Only Weapon »

Posted by: deathray 2 years, 9 months ago

Archived 96 0 drops

Congress is hardly limited to this seemingly magical power of the purse. It has several sources of constitutional authority over the use of military force, including the express right "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."

Read Full Story at nytimes.com »

Submitted By:

deathray

Hm...summarizing a life...Investment banker, sailor, unintentional gourmet cook. Ex US Naval officer, also Foreign Service. Split my time between NYC and Miami Beach ...

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 203

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
deathray
March 14, 2007, 8:19 a.m.
The Administration are doing their best by trying to control the debate over checks on Presidential power to wage war. Apparently it's not an all or nothing proposition:
'...including the express right "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."'
What do you think?
Avg rating: (+0/-1 -1)
Amazing1
March 14, 2007, 9:19 a.m.
Congress needs to use every power available to stop this war. They members of Congress are either part of the solution or an addition to the problem.
In addition, the current administration has been totally wrong on every prediction they have made about this debacle. The Iraqis did not greet us as liberators, the insurgents were not in their last throes, the mission was never accomplished, there were no WMD, the war has not paid for itself and there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Therefore, why should any of us believe a word of what they say when they predict that leaving Iraq would embolden the terrorists? Their track record indicates they have this wrong, too.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Bkumm
March 14, 2007, 10:40 a.m.
I agree with you in principal David, but don't you think that if any member of Congress had the interest of the People truly at heart they would have taken the President to task for his many half-truths and getting around the facts. Just a couple to keep in mind (and to give you something to put in para's LOL)
1. The TSA program. In itself it is not illegal. Other Presidents have used it. It is the method by which he uses this program that is the problem ie not getting warrents for the wire-taps.
2. Not telling the American People the whole truth about the Valarie Plame/Yellowcake/Niger issue. The outing of Plame was bad enough (although I don't think illegal), but not explaining that the yellowcake issue was a one off seems wrong.
3. Getting us into the war in Iraq under pretenses that later turned out to be false. I'm not suggesting that he KNEW they were false at the time (I'm not saying he didn't know either), but to spin it afterward seems wrong.
Avg rating: (+5/-1 4)
Amok77
March 14, 2007, 10:41 p.m.
Not likely they will see it thru until the end, they will be out of office and the next president will be left to clean up their mess. As I see it, there really isn't a way to win this disaster because its a civil war that has been going on for centuries and will continue for god knows how long. But the US does not currently possess a way to win or even gracefully get out of this mess.
Avg rating: (+1/-2 -1)
donald51
March 14, 2007, 10:47 p.m.
Edin, no redemption for the damage: the dead and maimed Americans, the Dead and maimed Iraqi innocents, the loss of our world good will and prestige, etc... If possible though, the first step in redemption is impeachment of this president and his NEOCON buddies. If an ideological war as Dubya claims, then lets get back the moral high ground we had before dubya!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Thinkingisgood
March 14, 2007, 1:19 p.m.
Nice find, Deathray. There are some options here and I suppose it's up to us to explain them to our senators and representatives. We can use the email option on the story to direct it to their offices.
Avg rating: (+0/-1 -1)
ramblingwreck
March 14, 2007, 4:23 p.m.
Good article deathray. I was most struck by the fact that while I don't necessarily agree with all of the authors opinions, there are certainly things the Congress could do if they were indeed serious about stopping the Iraq war. I think we need a Congress that will say what it means, and then have the "intestinal fortitude" to back it up. Too many of our Senators and Reps. have the unique ability to conform their opinions to the direction of the politcal wind on a daily basis...that's "followship" not "leadership".
anioklyComment has been removed: User banned.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
keinkampf
March 14, 2007, 4:32 p.m.
Three important precepts of modern American politics are being ignored in the piece:
1. Good, patriotic Americans MUST support the "national interest" above all else.
2. The "national interest" is exactly what the President's owners define it to be--no more and no less.
3. Congressmen, more than anyone, must maintain their image as good, patriotic Americans to be re-elected.
I agree that Congress theoretically has authority under the Constitution to limit the President's deployment of troops, and this authority may be found to come from several other sources than simply the "all-or-nothing" appropriations clause. However, the editorial piece ignores the fact that this isn't 1799 or 1940, and that the practical meaning of the Constitution has changed since those dates. A modern Congress will never actually vote to limit troop deployments.
Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)
cleare
March 14, 2007, 4:38 p.m.
all i can say is that the house had better remember that they ALL have to run for reelection every 2 years and we'll get them sooner or later if they don't take definitive action to end this war NOW.
anioklyComment has been removed: User banned.
Avg rating: (+1/-1 0)
Harbeas
March 14, 2007, 4:53 p.m.
Remember, those senators and representatives are there because you voted them in. They were not appointed. If they do nothing or don't listen to their public, VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE! Keep doing this until they change their attitude and start listening to those that put them there and not their party's line.
Avg rating: (+15/-1 14)
deathray
March 14, 2007, 5:10 p.m.
I want them to put up more interesting pictures next to the stories that make the front page...
Maybe Congress will do something about THAT!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
IcCaRus
March 14, 2007, 5:14 p.m.
"not too many Republicans campaigned on anything other than supporting the war"
how wonderful for us. their only issue is now one that will get them un-elected in 08.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Obtruder
March 14, 2007, 6:14 p.m.
"I think that the tide is flowing the other way and Republicans up for re-election in 2008 has to watch how they vote because this war is not popular."
The Democrats have turned their hide and seek tactics towards an inevitable letdown. The far left agenda is going to awaken moderate America.
The recent polls reflect that Gulliani and/or McCain could easily beat either Clinton and/or Obama.
If Fred Thompson is added to the ticket as a VP candidate, it is all over.
anioklyComment has been removed: User banned.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
oldracerguy
March 14, 2007, 8:52 p.m.
How do you spell LAME DUCK? not daffy duck or duck head or DUCK! Cheny's trying to hunt birds but good ole LAME DUCK?
BUSH, BUSH, Bush, Bush, Bush..., GW
Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)
fotoman1133406
March 14, 2007, 9:33 p.m.
Guys,
Yep, There's more than one way to bend ya over and give ya the shaft. OUCH...
Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)
Openeyes
March 14, 2007, 9:51 p.m.
Because the Democrats are too busy posturing for the next election cycle.Fortunately the last election returned a small balance in the power strugles that are ongoing.Rather thaan step up and try to end this downward spiral that has gone on for six years now,they are still cowering as they have done since 2000.The GOP has done nothing but prove that they have only contempt for our constitution and the checks and balance system.The Democrats have proven that they don't have the guts to defend the constitution.We the people have to demand better and hold them to it!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
pelachile
March 14, 2007, 10:12 p.m.
Democrats don't defend the constitution they rewrite it. Oh yeah, is the first 100 days over yet? And has anything been accomplished?
I like all this belief that the mid term elections meant anything. Historically, the party in power loses seats during the mid terms, they usually lose more than the republicans did.
Republican will be back in power in 08. The democrats still don't have any ideas or policies. Defeat in Iraq is not a winning policy. Americans may not like the war in Iraq but that doesn't mean they prefer defeat either. I can guarantee that Americans don't like paying higher taxes or socialized medicine, not just yet. Sure, I know that when the dems figure out a way to get the illegal aliens the vote that we will never see a republican president or majority again and we might even have to kiss English as the national language goodbye. Until that time, the dems are going to have to come up with something besides hatred of Bush.
anioklyComment has been removed: User banned.
anioklyComment has been removed: User banned.
anioklyComment has been removed: User banned.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
alakazam
March 14, 2007, 11:43 p.m.
A united Congress could supersede Presidential authority in any way they wanted.
The entire purpose of the veto override was to secure the country against despotism within the Executive branch.
The power does exist, actually wielding it is where things get sticky.
anioklyComment has been removed: User banned.