now is the time to force a constitutional crisis down Bush's throat....

[mike_c]

A recent ABC news poll indicates that at least 57 senators would likely vote to rescind the Iraq war authority granted under the IWR if such a resolution could be brought to the floor. In fact, given the message sent by the 2006 midterm elections, I believe that even more would do so-- there is NO political future left in supporting the train wreck in Iraq, especially against the backdrop of current conditions.

The House would undoubtedly follow suit.

That would throw the authority for war back onto the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and under the most charitable conditions-- assuming that the IWR covered the time from the invasion until it was rescinded-- would force Bush to seek new authority for war or withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq within 60 days. Conceivably, if he could turn Iraq into a shining example of prosperous democracy during that time then everyone would be happy, and congress would likely give him whatever further authority he needs to pave the streets of Baghdad with gold.

More realistically, the Bush administration would be faced with a constitutional crisis. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is at best a knocked-up compromise that attempts to reconcile the authority of the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, with the constitutional authority-- and responsibility-- of Congress to declare or not declare war. This issue has been dodged for many years because when the necessity arises, neither Congress nor the President want to be diverted by the underlying constitutional issues or to risk a challenge to their presumed authorities.

Those issues are properly a matter for the judiciary to decide, but they have never been brought to the Supreme Court-- again because neither Congress nor the Executive have ever really wanted them tested. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 attempts to patch over the contradictions between congressional and presidential authority by giving the executive an out, but only for 60 days.

Every president since Nixon has argued that the WPR is unconstitutional, but none have challenged it. It is an uneasy balance between congress and the executive branch that keeps the courts out of the matter.

Rescinding congressional authority for the war against Iraq would ultimately force the issue before the court unless Bush meekly packs up and withdraws, which I doubt would happen. I believe this is an excellent time to do this because the court would be acting against the background of Iraq itself, with full understanding of the utter mess the executive can make if it has the unbridled authority to use war as an instrument of foreign policy without the check of congressional authority. It would have the Bush administration-- one of the worst presidents in history-- asking for a ruling on behalf of presidential power.

This would also add a further ironic distinction to the Bush legacy. He would be remembered as the president who screwed up so badly that the Court was forced to limit presidential power in response. It would also restrain the unary executive movement for the foreseeable future.

[mike_c]

1. kicking since no one seems interested....

:kick:

[patrice]

2. Lt. Watada's Constitutional objections to Bush's Private War begin

his days in Court soon: http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2463153.php

[dogday]

3. I have been ready for this.....

K&R Why aren't more responding to this post... It is great :hi:

[H2O Man]

4. I agree.

I think that Bush & Cheney have threatened to destroy the Constitution. We can't have Bush & Cheney in office for 2 more years, and provide for the Constitution's safety. It is a crisis. We must save that Constitution.

[frogcycle]

5. I like this

we absolutely ARE facing a constitutional crisis, imo. better to force it this way than to wait until things are even worse.

my fear is that if congress does not "get tough" the situation will become so untenable to the public AND THE MILITARY TOP BRASS that some form of downright rebellion will occur. of course, I not only fear that, but also hope that DOES occur if nothing else is done. I'd rather see this resolved within the constitution, by having the congress and the court trump bush's "commander-in-chief" carte blanche.

If he could be put in his place WITHOUT impeachment, mores the better. keep him there, in the "penalty box", and systematically strip him of the authority he's grabbed on all fronts, using constitutionally-provided means.

I don't think his psyche could take it - think he'd go postal before long and we'd have to remove him anyway, but that would be an obvious necessity, not something anyone could paint as "retribution" or whatever

[corkhead]

6. This is going to be good popcorn time. Chimperor has never given in on a thing in his sorry ass life

Even poppy can't bail him out of this one...
:popcorn:

[elmerdem]

7. I for one don't find...

confidence in the current SCOTUS that they would likely restrict presidential power.

[mike_c]

9. if this presidency and it's misuse of authority-- its BUMBLING...

...misuse of authority- doesn't demonstrate the dangers of war without checks and balances then it's hard to imagine a situation when the SCOTUS would limit presidential power anyway, so there is nothing to lose, especially in the current situation. It cannot actually get worse. It's a no lose proposition. The Constitution is absolutely explicit about congressional authority to declare war-- the SCOTUS cannot take that away. The worst it could do is formalize the current ambiguity about presidential war authority. Since we're already there anyway, what is there to lose by forcing a constitutional crisis and making the executive argue-- and what better fumbling idiot executive to force into this position?

[jaksavage]

8. Bring it on !

The feces are aproaching the rotary air accelerator. Goggles on, rain coat zipped...here we go.

[ninkasi]

10. Anything to stop the needless slaughter

of both troops, and civilians, in Iraq. So far, the Dems have been putting forward some good ideas to stop the madness of the delusional and arrogant "Decider". I think it's time to take back the Congressional authorities that Bush has stolen. He thinks there's only one branch of government, the Executive branch.

[Doctor_J]

14. Stopping the slaughter would just be icing on the cake

the cake would be putting the brakes on this lunatic who thinks he's King.

[ninkasi]

19. Oh, yes!

The deaths and injuries, of course, are what I think of first, but he has done so much harm to our democracy, I hardly know where to begin. I guess my first thought is the carnage in Iraq, and now, increasingly, in Afghanistan, but the damage he does here is just as deadly. How many have died from lack of medical treatment? How many people have died sooner than they should, simply from the stress of seeing their jobs shipped overseas and having their insurance stopped?

How many children's mental and emotional health has been stunted, due to having cutbacks in funding for free breakfasts, and lunches,just because Bush's priorities have been for funding the war, and giving the mega-wealthy tax breaks? No child left behind? What a cruel joke. The only interest Bush and his buddies have in the children of the poor is as future cannon fodder for their endless wars.

How many needless pregnancies of young teen-agers, just because Bush's idea of birth control is just saying no? That never worked in the past, why should it work now. TOJ, thank you for pointing out how much we truly need to put the brakes on, as you correctly call him, "the lunatic who thinks he's King".

So much loss of life, of liberty, of jobs, of peace of mind, are all things that will be a part of this worthless frat boy's legacy. I hope that this time, after seeing how vulnerable democracy can be, we can change the disastrous path our country has been on since the SCOTUS handed Bush the presidency.

[ms liberty]

11. K&R. Agreed - we need to face it down once and for all. n/t

[Flarney]

12. Kicked...

I would recommend if I could!

[brer cat]

25. Here, I just did it for you!

Welcome to DU,Flarney!

:hi:

[Bobbie Jo]

13. Do It!

K&R :kick:

[Poiuyt]

15. Has anyone in Congress suggested doing this?

Or has it been suggested to them?

[drm604]

16. Won't Bush just veto it?

Unless they have a veto-proof majority he'll veto it and there'll be no crisis.

[mike_c]

18. I don't think he'll be able to do that...

...for a couple of reasons. First, because slapping congress in the face will get him nowhere-- they have other ways to make his life a living hell-- including overriding a veto, and in this case I think they would. More likely he would simply ignore it, but in that case it becomes law automatically after 10 days anyway. Finally, Congress has a further recourse-- it could rescind the WPR on which the whole house of cards is built in the first place. Bush would NEVER veto that action, and even if he did, the result would be the same constitutional crisis.

No, I'm convinced that the simplist thing for Congress to do-- even more popular in the long run than defunding the war-- would be to just pull the authorization.

[drm604]

35. But it would get him somewhere.

Vetoing it would leave him with the IWR. They need 2/3 in both houses to override a veto. That's 67 in the Senate and I don't know of any indication that enough Republicans will join with them to do that.

Why would he simply ignore it and allow it to become law? Why would he do that when he can make it go away by vetoing it? I don't understand why you think he's so unlikely to use the veto. He's a lame duck so he doesn't have to be concerned about politics, especially if the majority of Republican legislators vote in support of him anyway.

As far as the WPR is concerned, unfortunately the requirements for that were met in 2002 when Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq. The IWR specifically stated that it constituted the authorization required by the WPR (http://tinyurl.com/yhsf5z">Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002). If they try to pass a bill rescinding that, he'll simply veto it.

I hope that I'm wrong but I can't see any reason that he would allow this.

[Lugnut]

17. K&R

:kick:

[Pastiche423]

20. K&R

Have you sent this to your senator? Do you mind if I send it to mine?

[mike_c]

23. please do....

eom

[nam78_two]

21. K&R.nt

[struggle4progress]

22. Setting clear defunding deadlines would be easier. We don't want this mess in SCOTUS.

[mike_c]

24. oh but we do....

What better case to make the point that the Court MUST resolve the issue of separation of power in matters of war? Congress forced the WPR on Nixon because of the Vietnam War, and he KNEW the SCOTUS would limit presidential powers if he made an issue of it. Iraq is a poster child for why the president should not have the authority to unilaterally make war as an instrument of foreign policy, and constitutional scholars have been arguing that point for many years.

The power of congress is explicit and safe in any event-- this is a no-lose situation for checks and balances, IMO.

[struggle4progress]

28. The courts are always a crap-shoot, and the situation is worse

since W packed the bench. If the SCOTUS decisions of 2000 shouted anything clearly, it's that SCOTUS was packed with Bush suck-ups, and the situation is certainly no better today. If one is not certain of the outcome in such a case, it's better to stay out of court rather than to risk a precedent that will haunt us for a generation.

The courts traditionally have tried to avoid addressing "political questions," and a Congress-POTUS showdown on War Powers is precisely the sort of question the courts would prefers not to address. The courts will surely note that, since Congress controls the purse-strings, Congress can limit POTUS war-making simply by declaring that funds shall not be spent for certain purposes. Thus, if SCOTUS actually touched War Powers, the history suggests that they might prefer to do so in a peculiar and limited way.

Congress needs to take a clear stand. Organizing people to push Congress to take a clear stand has the additional benefit of organizing people, after which they may be available for other actions. Handing off the whole matter to SCOTUS would not allow Congress to continue to shirk its responsibilities in the matter, it would effectively force us to sit on our hands while awaiting the decision -- since Washington insiders would say, "Well, let's hear what the court has to say."

Result: Bush gets more time in Iraq, Congress gets to cop out, and SCOTUS eventually does heaven-knows-what.

[Vincardog]

26. The SCOTUS gave us this mess they can have to fix it.

Remember when they violated the constitution to install jr?

[struggle4progress]

32. SCOTUS gave us this mess means WE have to fix it.

We can't count on SCOTUS for crap in matters like this.

[Vincardog]

43. Duh ya think?

[bpeale]

49. the supremes

can't we impeach supremes who do not do their duty to uphold the consitution also? just asking because that might be an option to fix them too.

[struggle4progress]

50. Gerald Ford said "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House ..

.. of Representatives considers <it> to be," offering this definition in a speech calling for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas -- and the Blue-dress proceedings in Congress 1998-1999 showed that many Republicans approve of this definition.

Strictly speaking, of course, Ford's definition is correct, and as an abstract matter I see no problem with using Ford's definition to remove judges who attack the Constitution.

But, as the song says, "if you call on me, that ain't no rose -- roll up the window and hold your nose." The Constitution is deliberately vague, assuming that the division of power will protect the general structure and that our political process will right many wrongs. While judges could certainly be impeached for the content of their decisions, such impeachments would establish ugly and destructive precedent, threatening forever the traditional understandings of American governance -- and hence such an option should be considered only in the case of the most egregious offense against the Constitution, and then only with almost universal agreement by everyone.

See the third paragraph on page -6- of Ford's 15 April 1970 speech : http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/700415f.htm

[Hailtothechimp]

27. Agreed. The last signing statement went too far.

That bastard does not have the right to open my mail, or anybody else's, without having a warrant first. He needs to go.

[EVDebs]

38. Actually, BOTH AUMF's went too far

Giving Bush, "at his determination" and unconstitutionally the power to open your mail let's say. Also see post #37

[WiseButAngrySara]

29. Oh, Please let this happen before it's too late! ....n/t

[NCarolinawoman]

30. Sounds good to me!!!

:thumbsup:

[Chichiri]

31. Hot damn. Let's do it.

[FogerRox]

33. Excellent point thanks

I think this tact may be more fuitfull than withdrawing funds.

[bridgit]

34. agreed, make him earn his fucking money...

:patriot:

[Cleita]

36. I don't think we will have to force it down his throat. It seems

to be heading there anyway to slither down his throat and he won't be able to do anything about it.

[EVDebs]

37. The AUMF's language "...at his determination..."

is Congress abdicating ITS responsibilities under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which btw requires "clear" "situations" and "circumstances" when going to war and sending troops into harm's way.

This is the crux of the Constitutional crisis you speak of Mike. Thanks for this and also remember that Repub Senator Warner spoke about a revisitation to this Iraq AUMF at the very least.

[Time for change]

39. This sounds like an excellent idea to me

I'm not sure why it would be characterized as a Constitutional crisis though, if Congress took your advice.

Congress rescinds authority for the war, which leaves Bush with 60 day authority based on the WPR. Bush either withdraws, or he brings the matter before the courts. And they rule on it.

I guess the Constitutional crisis would occur if Bush refused to abide by the court's ruling?

[jaybeat]

40. Hot dang!

Kicked *and* recommended. (My first! I'm veclempt!)

Wasn't it Poppy who said he was drawing a "line in the sand" for Saddam before GW I? Congress owes America and the Consitution the drawing of another line for the Boy King. I suggest that line be defined by...

Article One, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

The Congress shall have power...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

He thinks he's above the law? Three words (only *we* mean it):

BRING

IT

ON

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[ladywnch]

41. well, since jr stacked the SCOTUS wouldn't they just

reinforce his powers (both real and imagined)?

[mike_c]

42. first, the SCOTUS isn't THAT stacked, and second...

...congressional authority is explicit and not in question. The WORST the court could do is formalize the current stand off between the congress and the executive. But since it's a genuine constitutional issue I don't think that would happen-- no justice would want to be remembered for having punted on that issue. It's the ruling of a lifetime-- settling a constitutional question that dates from the founding of the republic.

[struggle4progress]

52. One appointed by Ford, two by Reagan, two by GHW Bush, two by GW Bush, and

two by Clinton -- that sounds to me like some evidence wingnuts might control the court.

The 5-4 split we saw in December 2000 that handed the presidency to W is hardened by the replacement of O'Connor and Rehnquist with Alito and Roberts: although the replacement of wacko Rehnquist by wacko Roberts may not make much difference, the replacement of right-moderate O'Connor by wingnut Alito does represent a further shift towards the right.

[DemReadingDU]

44. morning kick!

[Richard D]

45. Can someone explain to me . . .

. . . just what a constitutional crisis is and why it's a bad thing?

[jazzjunkysue]

46. Who's turn is it to tell congress to draft a bill? Let's do it!

[westerebus]

47. Three scenarios.

One: Congress uses War Powers Act in the next supplemental appropriations bill to force bushcheney into a reauthorization for Iraq.
Two: The generals tell bushcheney no to the surge.
Three: Somebody starts bombing Iran and the shite hits the fan.
Well two is a done deal. The generals who didn't go along are promoted out of the way. Now we may have a congress willing to use the WPA. It was bush who declared "we won" on the aircraft carrier. Later,"the Iraqis have an elected government". "Saddam's gone". So why are we still there if the "mission's accomplished"?
Three is the BIG ONE. The admiral who was appointed to run central command is a naval air power commander. Hello,Iran.
The three scenarios were posted 18 Dec.2006 in response to a "Surge" OP. I'll say it again. Get the troops out! Out now!

[EVDebs]

51. It was all planned for years ago...

Why the Quakers are being spied upon by the NSA

14 Permanent Bases in Iraq
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

and since Nixon's days the seizure of oil fields has been part of the DoD's plans

Nixon plans to seize Saudi oil fields (substitute "Iraq" now)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/02/MNG8G427D61.DTL

[Vidar]

48. Spectacular idea.

[IkeWarnedUs]

53. Does Senator Kennedy's proposal do this?

Does anyone know if Senator Kennedy's proposal, as he laid out in today's National Press Club speech, force this kind of constitutional showdown?

I hope so.

Bring it on.