Congress weighing strength of its war powers

[cal04]

(snip)
"The Constitution makes Congress a coequal branch of government. It's time we start acting like it," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who is chairing a hearing Tuesday on Congress' war powers and forwarding legislation to eventually prohibit spending for the deployment of troops to Iraq.

His proposal, like many others designed to force an end to U.S. involvement in the bloody conflict, is far from having enough support even to come up for a vote on the Senate floor.

(snip)
But some senators, complaining that the resolution is symbolic, are forwarding tougher bills.

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, for example, is a sponsor of a bill that would call for troops to come home in 180 days and allow for a minimum number of forces to be left behind to hunt down terrorists and train Iraqi security forces.

"Read the Constitution," Boxer told her colleagues last week. "The Congress has the power to declare war. And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts."


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/war.powers.ap/index.html

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. What are they waiting for?

The Congress has the power to declare war. And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts. What are they waiting for? End it NOW! :banghead:

[Kagemusha]

2. Boxer's resolution can be vetoed and filibustered

whereas funds need to be continually provided. Not something that'd come up for the surge's initial component but, er, the "18 month" surge will eventually need more money to be sustained.

It's more a matter of will to begin with and Congress by no means has a veto-proof majority to resolve that the conflict should end, nor impeach the President for ignoring Congress' intent.