LEAHY To BUSH ADMIN: "What (Congressional) Constitutional Authority Do You Recognize?"

[kpete]

"What constitutional authority do you recognize resides with the Congress with respect to war?"

Sens to Admin: Explain Views on Congress War Powers
By Paul Kiel - January 30, 2007,

This ought to be good. Senate Judicary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) have written Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to ask what power they think Congress has to restrict the waging of war.

The request comes as Sen. Russ Feinfold (D-WI) holds a hearing today called "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War." A number of Democrats, like Feingold, have urged that the Democrats use the power of the purse to restrict Bush's troop increase in Iraq.



http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002437.php

[cynatnite]

1. It's here, too...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=82200&mesg_id=82200

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

2. Assuming Congress doesn't lose its steam

* may be responsible for power shifting back to to the Legislative branch after 100+ years of going to the Executive. He is going to drive people to their elected representatives, where they will say, like me, IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

[dos pelos]

10. And if congress does nothing but posture then.........

what do we do? What do we do if a president unilaterally expands a war against the will of the people?What do we do if the congress,newly elected by those people,does NOT SERVE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE?What do we do if the entire political establishment postures ,ventilates and squirms but becomes an oppressive force unresponsive to the people?We have been here before,look to the Declaration of Independence:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them to absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

[emulatorloo]

3. kick and rec n/t

[Miss Chybil]

4. Like he'll actually send them an answer... nt

[Benhurst]

5. At last! Recommended,

[malaise]

6. The power to

IMPEACH!

[fooj]

7. Has Gonzo supplied the paperwork Leahy gave him a deadline on?

[Avalux]

9. Nope. He's got Congress on permanent ignore.

I don't expect he'll respond to this letter either; what are they going to do to him if he doesn't? Nothing.

[tridim]

11. Do you really believe they'll do nothing?

Have you not been paying attention for the past month? Our new congress is the exact opposite of "Do nothing". What Congress are you watching?

[Avalux]

12. Of course I've been paying attention.

But other than calling him in and questioning him, they can't do anything to him. He was appointed by Bush.

[jelly]

13. With respect to the Canadian torture victim,

I distinctly recall that the Senator asking for information concerning same told Gonzo that he had one week, no more, to provide it, and that if he did not provide it, a full inquiry into the matter would be opened. Let's hope he makes good on the threat; the inquiry would open the extraordinary renditions program can of worms, a can which has impeachment written all over it.

[quiet.american]

8. Very nice chess move. n/t

[lovuian]

14. Congress is getting the message They are useless

their power went out years ago

[gratuitous]

15. The Bush administration recognizes everyone's authority

To agree with whatever they say or do. Other than that? Ehhhhh, not so much.

[Straight Shooter]

16. Please tell me that's not a typo I see in that critical sentence.

"What limits to you believe exist on those authorities?"

Did they proofread that letter before signing it? Maybe it shouldn't be a big deal, but it's a pet peeve of mine that people in such high-profile positions let this kind of error slip through.

[Hosnon]

17. Oh good lord...you've got to be kidding me!

Now the Administration is going to pass it around for a good chuckle...could take away the intended gravity.

[Quantess]

18. What?!

That secretary should be fired.

[elehhhhna]

22. Perhaps. But the signers sign it. Proofread what you SIGN, people!

[Peace Patriot]

19. You know what? I think this Congress is pissed, and I mean PISSED--

pissed like the CIA was pissed, when the Junta outed their agent Plame and her entire counter-proliferation network.

I've been going back and forth, like everybody else, trying to decide if this Congress is up to the task of saving our republic. But when I look at a letter like this...signed by both parties...this is UNPRECEDENTED.


This letter is a gauntlet thrown. It reminds me of the situation in which the Magna Carta was written (considered by many to be the founding document with regard to LIMITING the executive's--in that case, the king's--power). The letter is a shot across the bow. It is not the declaration of Congressional powers--a re-statement of the Constitutional principles that ONLY Congress holds the power to declare war, and ONLY Congress holds the purse-strings for war--that may be coming. But it is certainly a preliminary. Leahy wouldn't write such a letter--and neither would Specter--merely as a gesture, to gain political points. (Too many other ways to do that, without risking their reputations like this.) This is a VERY SERIOUS MATTER involving the integrity of their institution.

This letter says: We are going to take your war powers away and return them to their proper venue, Congress. What do you say to that? How do you intend to stop us?

It is not polite. It is a gauntlet. And I cannot think of a precedent for it, in the modern era. The curtailment of Reagan's power to make war on Nicaragua was not put in these terms--who has the power? and, we dare you to say we DON'T have the power. Congress' power was never in question. (Reagan went to covert ops to subvert the resolution--the Iran/Contra scandal, which ended with some of the underlings in jail. Congress' power to forbid a war was not a issue. And when the Iran/Contra hearings occurred, it was never in question that Congress had a right to do what it did, and to enforce its decision. So, there was never any occasion for Congress to write to Reagan's AG in this very challenging and "we dare you to put pen to paper tone" tone.)

Gonzales would be smart to politely write back, thanks for your letter and we "torture memo" writers over here are trying to decide what you meant by that typo ("limits to you" rather than "limits do you"). But Gonzales is really in way over his head. He's not smart enough to write a clever letter. He probably won't reply. No matter. Lack of reply, or bad reply, will throw gas on the flames. This Congress is REALLY PISSED OFF.

I'm wondering if they made a deal with Bush--de-escalate the war and we won't impeach. And he's broken the deal already, and is thumbing his nose at them.

[redacted]

20. ..

[Edweird]

21. They need to "man up"

yeah they are talking and it sounds kind ok, but what have they done so far. A half assed non-binding resolution? and now there's a "bi-partisan iraq study panel" or some such foolishness. We've had 6 years to "study" and be "bi-partisan" Everbody knows they lied. Everybody knows they are crapping on the constitution. Everybody knows they are war criminals. We don't need subpoena's for that, it's in the newspaper. Hell, they even admit it on national tv. It's time for our reps to step up and STOP.HIM.NOW.

[donsu]

25. kick

nt

[mmonk]

23. He recognizes congress's constitutional authority

to serve at his behest.

[TahitiNut]

24. "Show Me The Money!"

He looks at them as mere rubber-stamp fund-raisers.

[nam78_two]

26. K&R

Go senator go! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: