Biden says Congress is "constitutionally powerless" because lawmakers already authorized war.

[Clarkie1]

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate, said increasing troops would be a “tragic mistake.” But he contended Congress was constitutionally powerless to second-guess Bush’s military strategy because lawmakers had voted to authorize the commander in chief to wage war.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16514679/

Argree, disagree? Discuss...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

1. Read the &^%$F# Constitution, Senator!!!

[Clarkie1]

2. I don't think this bodes well for Biden's chance in 08'.

Ironically, I read that he announced (again?) today.

[LiberalFighter]

19. Biden is a "tragic mistake"

[bananas]

3. It's basically correct

Congress has the power of raising (or not raising) money,
the executive branch is in charge of foreign affairs.
That's why we need a Dem for president in '08.
Preferably a progressive/liberal Dem,
I will vote Kucinich in the primaries,
but in the final election I will be voting for whoever the Dem candidate is in '08.

[Clarkie1]

5. So, the IWR resolution was in fact important, contrary to what some here on DU contend? nt

[Kagemusha]

7. It wasn't a war resolution technically, but so technically it doesn't matter

Congress, having authorized combat without a war, well, can Congress un-authorize it, without ending a war? I don't know. It's not like there haven't been undeclared wars in American history (there was one with France in the country's infancy). The practical power is to cut off money to fight such a conflict. The symbolic is to do something about the authority under which to do so. Both are seen as stabbing troops in the back. It's not a constitutional hiccup. It's a political one

[bananas]

11. Yes and no

I don't feel like debating this now.
The bottom line is that the Bush administration totally screwed up.

edit to add: the fact is, even under the War Powers Act, even if the IWR had been voted down, Bush would still have been able to order the invasion of Iraq. That's reality, like it or not.

[calimary]

13. Why can't they revoke the War Powers Act? Or the Iraq War

Resolution?

I wouldn't be admitting defeat this early in the game if I were Biden.

[LiberalFighter]

17. Congress can only pass bills

It can't force the President to sign them into law unless they have the votes to over-ride his veto.

[sampsonblk]

28. Congress has a LOT of foreign policy power

Foreign policy has to be conducted within the confines of the law - which is written by the Congress. Time to write some new laws, I'd say!

[JDPriestly]

4. Bush may be the Commander in Chief, but Congress controls

the money. Remember how the Republican Congress delayed in passing the budget during the Clinton years. Sometimes money walks and talks. In addition, Congress has the ability to investigate. Either Bush will respect Congress and accept Congress's input on the strategy in Iraq, or Bush's generals and aides will have to explain why not to Congress. So, even if Biden is right from a technical point of view, he is wrong from a practical point of view. Congress can make it very hard for Bush to ignore Congress's viewpoint on Iraq.

[Kagemusha]

8. Uh... that govt shutdown was a massive political disaster for Gingrich.

Do Democrats really wanna copy him in that particular case?

[madrchsod]

10. "the great white fleet"

"Senator Eugene Hale from Maine, chairman of the Naval Appropriations Committee, threatened to withhold money for the cruise. But this didn't bother Roosevelt, who replied in his typically brusque and forthright fashion that he already had the money and dared Congress to "try and get it back."

bush holds the cards on this hand but the game is far from over

[baldguy]

16. Bush needs to go back to Congress every other month for more money.

All Congress has to do is say "No!"

[LiberalFighter]

18. This is where Congress has the power

As long as Bush needs money Congress has power.

BUTTTTTT

Who's to say that once Bush gets the money he won't use it to send more troops over and then say I'm out of money for the troops that were already over there?

About the only thing Congress can possibly do is to stop passing any bills that require money except the military. But will harm Americans here in the states in one form or another.

[bdamomma]

20. we as the People should make our Congress say NO MORE

MONEY. We need to really keep on this. If enough of us bitch about it, something will get done.

[krispos42]

6. De-authorize the war

repeal the Authorization to use Military Force, or whatever it's called.

Then impeach Bush when he won't end the war

[calimary]

14. YES. Exactly.

Somebody HAS to say "NO" once and for all, and make it stick, with this jackass.

[paulk]

23. couldn't Bush just veto it?

that wouldn't be grounds for impeachment

[jaysunb]

9. Impeachment or threat of is the only

tool we have.

Mr Conyers...are you listening ?????

[OneBlueSky]

12. then he's a g-d fool . . . wars can be unauthorized just as easily as they are authorized . . .

and besides, BushCo went way beyond what the Congress intended in passing the IWR . . . including fabricating "evidence" that would meet the parameters imposed by Congress . . .

Biden has ZERO chance of being nominated or elected in 2008, imo . . .

[baldguy]

15. The so-called Iraq War Resolution

Authorizes the use of force ONLY AFTER ALL OTHER DIPLOMATIC OPTIONS HAD BEEN EXHAUSTED. Also, the reasons given by the Bush Regime for the need for such authorization - Iraq's WMDs, their connection to 9/11, their support of terrorists - were nothing but lies.

[kentuck]

21. Congress is not "Constitutionally powerless"...

Read me article and section?

[bemildred]

22. Impeachment is constitutional, Joe.

So would be many other things that are entirely within Congress power.

[blm]

24. They authorized a mission to de-arm Saddam of WMDs. Iraq's Civil War is NOT part

of the IWR and John Warner even made note of that last summer when he said Civil War in Iraq would require a NEW resolution that included interfering in civil war as part of the mission in Iraq.

[onenote]

25. one problem is that the courts have refused to get involved in war powers cases

Lawsuits were brought in 1984 and 1987 by members of Congress alleging that Reagan had, in El Salavador and again in the Persian Gulf, violated the War Powers Resolution (aka War Powers Act). Each time the courts took a pass, saying that it was not a "justiciable" question, but was a political dispute between co-equal branches of government. Moreover, because the WPR has provisions for Congress to pass resolutions to terminate military action if no approval is sought, the court felt that it was up to Congress to address the issue through the institutional means in its control, rather than ask the courts to do it for them.

[harveyc]

26. It is even worse than what Mr. Biden says

On 'Face the Nation' yesterday, Ms. Pelosi said she wouldn't cut the current level of funding for the Iraq war. Rep. Kucinich has discussed the Campbell vs. Clinton court decision, which says in a nutshell:

"Congress had appropriated funds for the war and therefore chose not to remove US forces."

If Ms. Pelosi does what she said yesterday about funding the current level in Iraq war, none of our soldiers there now will be coming home in the foreseeable future.

[LittleClarkie]

27. In the short term, the funding has already been voted upon I think

but they could vote against any more.