Unauthorize the war

[Generator]

http://www.slate.com/id/2157392/nav/tap1/


Four Ways To Stop the War
What Congress could do—if it dared.
By Emily Bazelon
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 10, 2007

Congress is sticking to gestures in expressing its dissatisfaction with the Iraq War. The new Democratic leadership isn't trying to stop President Bush's planned troop increase. Instead, they're just planning a resolution to express disapproval of it, a measure whose only practical impact will be forcing Republicans to take sides on the issue. But what if Congress were to actually exercise its war powers? The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and also to decide when to fund and how to regulate the military. But generations of presidents have succeeded in expanding their authority as commander in chief at Congress' expense—and with its permission, tacit or otherwise. If Congress wanted to push back in Iraq, here's a list of possibilities for what it could do, from cleanest to messiest, legally speaking:

1. Unauthorize the war. Or reauthorize it.
In October 2002, Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq. It could repeal that resolution and pass another one saying no more war. Or it could reauthorize the use of force on a different and more limited basis. Sen. Robert Byrd argues for reauthorization. The idea is that the reasons we thought we were going to war—Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction and alleged operational relationship with al-Qaida—have nothing to do with the current conflict.

Two questions would follow from a de- or reauthorization of war resolution, as they would from any flexing of congressional war-power muscles. Would the president accept Congress' judgment, and which branch of government would the courts side with if he didn't? If Congress spoke clearly enough to repeal the authorization of force, it's hard to imagine the other branches wouldn't listen, no matter what the president's commander-in-chief powers are. As law professor Neil Kinkopf of Georgia State University writes, "When Congress, acting in the vast areas of overlapping power, tells the President 'no,' the President must comply." Harold Koh, dean of Yale Law School, makes a more aggressive argument about the lack of continuing relevance of the 2002 authorization of force.

snip~
Much more on how to cut the purse strings as well.
~
Imagine. Saying NO to Bush. Imagine all those "I would have never voted for this war if I knew what I know now" putting their butts on the line and not just the easy talk.

Imagine. War is over if you want it. If you really want it. Hardly easy but I didn't even imagine such an option was there. But it is.

[helderheid]

1. rec 2

[Generator]

5. My husband just said

that's an unexciting title, but it really sums it all up. Based on everything it seems the most obvious thing to do. The war is folly, based on falsehoods and if they want to bring the troops home-instead of this feeling they have to support them by keeping them there-ending the authorization that got us there is an amazing solution. I didn't even know they could pull authorization unitl I read this.

[helderheid]

9. it's perfect. :)

[endarkenment]

11. As I said elsewhere - they can't do this without passing new

legislation. And that can be blocked in the senate or vetoes at the white house. The funding is the only way to force the issue into the courts.

[FogerRox]

13. THe Senate appears to have 12 supprting surge

It appears it would pass the Senate.

[Mnemosyne]

2. k and r! n/t

[wuushew]

3. With Johnson still sick and Lieberman against

I don't know if we have the numbers to repeal in the Senate. Would any Republicans vote to repeal?

[LSparkle]

7. Hagel, Collins/Snowe, Voinovich, Lugar ...

I think there are more than a handful of Repugs who are now seeing the light on this issue.

[Morgana LaFey]

12. Novak said the other day that Bush wouldn't be able to find more

than 12 Republican Senators to support the war.

[Rosemary2205]

8. I am hoping

(for this and also with impeachment), Reid and Pelosi are saying one thing in public and working backstage to coordinate what really needs to happen. For now, perhaps all we get is posturing but I hope the plan is on their backdoors tables to do what has to be done in the right order for success. Both in accomplishing the current goals (getting out of Iraq and punishing the Bush admin) and for future political wins.

While I disagree with nearly everything the conservatives stand for I dont mind them so much. It's the NEOCONS that took power that have to be squashed once and for all.

[porphyrian]

4. A lot can change in a short time if people want it. - n/t

[AndyA]

6. So the question is: Will Congress end the war, and if not, why not?

Why all the posturing if they could truly put an end to it?

After six years of dictatorship under the Republican control, I would think very few in Congress would still support the war, especially considering the public sentiment at this point in time. At least, anyone who had to worry about getting reelected.

[endarkenment]

10. reauthorize/deauthorize can be blocked or vetoed.

So support has to be bipartisan and has to be 60+ in the senate to get around a filibuster. Overriding the veto that would most certainly follow passage would require even bigger majorities in both houses.

Of course such legislation should be brought to the floor of both houses immediately and the issue should be forced to a vote, a filibuster, a veto, and a veto override, as required, regardless of the outcome. Everyone of our representatives has to go on the record, as does that complete idiot in the white house.

Cutting funding requires a simple majority in either house to vote no to the next special funding bill for the war.

[Senator]

14. Unauthorize the WarMongers

Only Impeachment ... works under "rule by signing statement."

It also prevents the next war.

--