Would enough republicans agree to rescinding AUMF?

[Parisle]

--- The original Authority to Use Military Force (in Iraq) has to be repealed or rescinded somehow. There HAS to be a way for this to be done,.. as well as to force Bush to abandon any further "personal war ambitions" he has, in favor of Constitutionally-required approval of Congress. In effect, the goddamned "blank-check" authority Bush has assumed with AUMF has to be voided. BEFORE he attacks Iran, eh? I feel sure that 60% majorities in both houses of Congress would be sufficient to defang the little bastard.

--- Assuming 100% agreement among the democrats (or something very close to that), we would need the help of about 35 republican representatives and 10-11 republican senators. Can we get it?

--- It HAS to be done. Will a sufficient number of republicans join us in the effort? Anyone have a feel for this contingency?

[AndyA]

1. I don't think too many Repugs are going to stand behind Bush

At least, not if they have to run for election in 2008. They know Americans want this war in Iraq to end, and our troops home. To continue to support it at this point would be career suicide.

There is no popular support for the war. It's based on lies, and everyone knows it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. On the contrary, alas - politics will strongly impel them to continue to support him.

The voters Republicans most need to please are their own, who by and large either support the war or are less strongly opposed to it than others. And appearing disloyal at a time like this will count very strongly against most Republicans in their primaries. Some of them may oppose the war on principle anyhow, and some may try and hedge their bets for political reasons, but don't expect at all many of them to directly oppose Bush.

[endarkenment]

2. Any affirmative action can be blocked

by fillibuster in the Senate of veto in the white house. On the other hand funding for the war can be defeated by a simple majority in the house.

[Parisle]

3. Sorry,.... it STILL has to be done,...

--- A presidential veto can be over-ridden by a two-thirds majority,... if not by 60%. That is why I was asking. And a filibuster by the GOP to keep Bush doing what America is sick of, would be easy to turn into a media spectacle portraying republicans as so anti-American and anti-democracy that they would never get over it.

[endarkenment]

9. I agree it should be done.

However the only effective measure Congress can take to end this war is to vote down funding.

[lapfog_1]

5. You will need 18 or possibly 19 repukes

to vote for something that rescinds the war resolution authority (because, I believe, you will need to override the veto of the President). It's at least 18 because Joementum will never vote to rescind. could be more if there are other Dems from red states that will not vote in favor (even if they abstain).

[Parisle]

6. Math?

---A 60% majority of the House would be 261 votes. There are 232 or 233 democrats in the House (so far),.. so at least 30 republicans would have to vote with the democrats. In the Senate, 60 votes make a 60% majority, so at the very least, 9 republicans would have to help out. Naturally, a true two-thirds majority in either House would require even more republicans to assist,......... but a total of only 18 or 19? Nope.

[lapfog_1]

7. To override a veto you need 67 votes.

49 Dems plus Bernie.

That leaves 17 repukes needed. Joe Lieberman will never vote to get out of Iraq or anything that smacks of doing that.

I assume that that if the Senate passes such a rescinding bill (I think it's just a new law that says it takes the place of the old law), I believe it must still be signed into law by the president, and if he should veto it, then it would take 2/3rds of the senate (67 votes) to override his veto.

However, maybe these are simply symbolic resolutions that do not have the force of law, in which case I'm mistaken and it would, as you say, need 60 votes to call the item for a vote (cloture). But then it has no teeth as far as what the President does or does not do.

[Parisle]

8. I'm going to bump this one, myself,....

--- Since the subject has re-appeared on this forum, I'd like to keep this notion in DU-er's minds for a while. This is an important "structural" concern in our supposedly Constitutional government,... and if it isn't dealt with, then we will have missed the moment.

[ProSense]

10. That would not stop Bush

What in rescinding the IWR will stop Bush, as his signing statement indicates, from claiming his executive privilege under the War Powers Resolution? It was the WPR and all the lies that he used to violate the IWR. The man must be stopped, but he will not be by simply pretending the IWR has anything to do with his previous actions; thereby assuming its revocation will serve any purpose. Throwing this out there because I've seen rescinding the IWR mentioned before.

(FindLaw) -- Republicans are debating among themselves whether President Bush should go to war against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Is a unilateral pre-emptive strike called for to prevent Hussein from getting nuclear weapons? Would such an attack destabilize the region and send oil prices soaring? Do we need -- or want -- allies involved?

Members of Congress, however, have raised the more fundamental question of whether the President can launch a war against Iraq without Congressional approval. According to reports out of Crawford, Texas, President Bush thinks he can. He believes the authorization Congress provided his father in 1991 for Operation Desert Storm is still good.

Snip...

The last great debate over presidential war powers

Truman's decision became the precedent for the unpopular Vietnam War (1961-1975). By 1973, the war-weary Congress challenged the President's war powers, concerned it had lost all power over the unending war in Vietnam, by introducing a sweeping War Powers Resolution

This resolution, designed to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President" are involved in decisions to use American military forces, acknowledges that a President can start a war without Congress -- so long as he advises Congress he is doing so. Then, if Congress does not either declare war or otherwise authorize the use of the military within 60 days from the start of the hostilities, the President must terminate such use of the military.

Over the veto of a Watergate-weakened Richard Nixon, the War Powers Resolution was adopted. But presidents have largely ignored it.

The War Powers Resolution, moreover, seemed to have pleased no one. Liberals, for example, criticized the resolution for permitting the president to unilaterally initiate hostilities for 60 days, before Congress can exercise its constitutional powers.

Snip...

It is also clear that under the War Powers Resolution, Bush II can engage in hostilities with Saddam without violating either the letter or sprit of the law for at least 60 days. Or like Clinton, he can simply ignore the law, and proceed. But in the end, the power resides with Congress, not the President, for one power the President cannot take away is the power to approve and withhold funds; it is Congress's alone.

more...

Statement on Signing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
October 16th, 2002

Snip...

The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386

Cutting funding and impeachment (the trial, that is to say I'm not implying that he is removed and Cheney takes over) are likely to be more effective.