Wouldn’t the better headline be: "Bush: Pelosi lacks power to stop me from doing what I want".
Sure, she could stop him... provided she got a bill through the House, past the probable filibuster in the Senate, and all with enough votes to override Bush’s veto. Or, if she was going to go the War Powers route, provided she got the Courts to agree to hear the case and rule in her favor and provided Bush was willing to abide by that decision.
The reality is she can’t do much of anything to keep Bush from moving against Iran (which I feel he should have done long ago). As she’s not stupid, I figure she knows this and her real goal is to pose in front of the cameras and play to her constituency. |
| |
Written By:
steve
URL:
http://
|
|
seems to me Pelosi (and other members of congress) is simply setting the stage for the appearance of more "Executive Cowboy-ing" and "illegal actions". I agree completely that Pelosi can’t stop a wide range of options- but comments like this will make Bush look more like a rogue when he does what he would most likely do; as if he somehow magically circumvented some constitutional impediment Pelosi hints exists with such a statement. |
| |
Written By:
Some Guy in Chicago
URL:
http://
|
|
She’s just playing to the audience. |
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
She’s just playing to the audience. Yeah, the Mullahs. And they’re loving it.
You gotta laugh. The Dems don’t have the sack to get tough and end this war, so they’re trying to show their chops by pre-emptively ending a non-existant war before it starts.
Profiles in courage, all of them.
In the meantime Nancy, why don’t you write up your opinions about what Bush can and can’t do vis a vis Iran and try to pass a nonbinding resolution? (One that exempts American Samoa of course)
|
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
I don’t have the time, today, but in the case of Bosnia, the Clinton administration... including Hillary Clinton, argued loudly that they HAD such authority, and the the argument Pelosi makes now was all so much hogwash.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if someone could dig up a quote from Pelosi at the time, supporting Clinton’s right to bomb the crap out of Melosovich, without Congress’ specific approval?
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://
|
Since it appears you’ve signed on to the constiutionality of the WPA, section 5(c) states:(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b) [relating to the 60 day limit], at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution. So, it appears to me that Bush can order the bombing and Congress can immediately order a stop to it (and it wouldn’t be too hard to interpret that section as preventing the president from ordering such bombing if congress has in advanced disapproved).
|
| |
Written By:
Ugh
URL:
http://
|
Ugh:
Do you know if that section has been constitutionally challenged? It looks suspect under Chada as violating the Presentment clause. I don’t know one way or the other. I’m just wondering if you do. |
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://asecondhandconjecture.com
|
|
MichaelW - I don’t know, but the link I gave is to a CRS report on the War Powers Act that I think discusses constitutional challenges to the act (or at a minimum discusses views on its constitutionality). |
| |
Written By:
Ugh
URL:
http://
|
The War Powers Act has NEVER been challenged in the courts...neither Congress nor the President wish to give the courts the chance to embarass them nor to grant the SCOTUS any powers in the realm of Foreign Policy/National Security Policy. So it is not possible to determine if or if not provisions of the WPA are Constitutional or not, there are only OPINIONS, generally opinions based on whether you like this or that President or not.
The WPA has led to the POTUS "consulting" with Congressional leaders prior to and before the use of force and it has lead the the various AUMF that so many libertarians regret in place of Declarations of War.
I think it is fair to say that it ahs had a good effect on US policy, by eliminating the possibility of a Tonkin Gulf Resolution situation.....much of the complaining aobut the GWot and OIF ultimately get refered to the AUMF’s passed prior to Afghanstan and OIF...Congress has managed to get isteld mousetrapped by some of the language that it approved....but the President has chosen to go to Congress rather than risk a show down over the WPA. |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
MichaelW - I don’t know, but the link I gave is to a CRS report on the War Powers Act that I think discusses constitutional challenges to the act (or at a minimum discusses views on its constitutionality). I see now. Thanks. |
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://asecondhandconjecture.com
|
