Question for DU Legislative Buffs.......

[Laura PourMeADrink]

I have been watching the debate on the withdrawal amendments for the last two days. If a miracle happened, and the Kerry and/or Levin amendments passed, how binding would that be? It would become the law of the land and then Bush would actually have to do what it said?

Why can't I imagine the Assclown actually saying, "Oh, Ok, I'll do what they say."

And, if the amendments passed, could and would he veto? Or would he have to veto the entire Defense Bill....

I must say, the way Kerry is pleading, you'd think there really was a chance his amendment could pass.

[TayTay]

1. The Levin Amendment is a 'Sense of the Senate'

and is non-binding. The Kerry/Feingold et all Amendment is binding and would become law, if it had a chance of actually getting enough votes. (I'm only betting on 8 votes for it at this point.)

Sen. Kerry should plead for his amendment. He is right on the merits and should continue to push this. Kerry stated that he has a moral obligation to speak out, so that he is not responsible for a Wall someday wherein huge numbers of Americans were sent to die after the Powers That Be in the government knew that effort was doomed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. Thanks. Only 8 - yikes. I think Kerry has been outstanding. I

wish people could have seen more of that side of him in 2004. He is right. And last night, when Kerry and John Warner were debating - Warner really didn't have anything negative to say about Kerry's ideas - mostly just questioned his timeframe.

I really wanted Kerry to come right out and ask Warner, "So, you agree with the components of this plan of action, but you think I just haven't allotted enough time?"

[INdemo]

6. Only 8 votes?

Well if that becomes fact then the MSM will have a field day with this..The Democrats are not united on this...not just a couple days but from now till election.

[blm]

7. The Levin vote will happen next and most Dems will vote for it.

The greater point is that this debate happened at all. It puts it out there for the American people that the GOPs will stay in Iraq indefinitely and the Dems want reasonable attention paid to the withdrawal debate.

[Avalux]

2. Symbolic.

Used as a means to debate the war itself in the Senate. No one really thinks either one has a chance in hell; Levin's isn't binding but Kerry's would be.

[SteppingRazor]

3. Two things:

First, Levin's is a nonbinding amendment, which basically means that it's just the Senate's opinion, not a law.

Second, even if a law demanding the troops come home passed both the House and the Senate, it would still not be law. Bush would have to sign it. And he would surely veto any such law.

[Sammy Pepys]

4. Levin's not binding: Kerry's would be

But another poster has it right....it's more a way to get the issue debated on the floor.

[Igel]

8. If Congress could mandate a withdrawal,

I'd like to see the argumentation for that. Apart from doing so simply by budgeting $0 for the affair, that is.

If you can order the top guy to do something, doesn't that mean he's not the top guy?