We already knew that Congress controls the "purse" and the president controls the "conduct". Having Bush in charge leading us into more disaster gives the importance of those powers a stronger meaning.
But there are those within our party who are saying Congress must not use its powers.
When one branch refuses to even consider the use of its power for any reason, our government is thrown out of balance. It does not matter what the reason, it is a dangerous sign.
There was a powerful post by Russ Feingold at Tom Paine back in February.
How to End the WarOur founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the president got the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, “Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded.”
Earlier this week, I chaired a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee to remind my colleagues in the Senate that, through the power of the purse, we have the constitutional power to end a war. At the hearing, a wide range of constitutional scholars agreed that Congress can use its power to end a military engagement.
Feingold continued with more explanation:
The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power “to declare War,” “to raise and support Armies,” “to provide and maintain a Navy” and “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” In addition, under Article I, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the Administration talk, it is as if these powers were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the founders of our republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define and, ultimately, to end a war.
If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers—defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a president whose policies are weakening our nation. There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.
But two groups, two think tanks which work in unison and are definitely setting policy for us...by their own words...say that it would be wrong for Congress to use funding to stop the war.
First in case anyone still says they are not setting policy:
DLC will be the policy shop for the 08 candidate"In a lengthy interview last week with a handful of reporters, Ford outlined his plans for the DLC -- ranging from its involvement in the 2008 presidential race to its work as the policy shop for the eventual Democratic nomination.
There is another group setting policy for the Democrats called The Third Way. They have talking points and memos as well.
They say Congress should not use funding to affect a war. That is the complete opposite of what is said in Feingold's column.
Third Way supports the idea for a nonbinding congressional resolution condemning the escalation. But going further, with legislation barring the troop increase, would be a mistake, for both substantive and political reasons.
First, we do not believe that Congress should use the imprecise mechanism of appropriations to dictate the management of an ongoing military conflict. There is simply no way of ensuring that funding restrictions would not compromise the safety of the troops already in the field, and it is generally a bad idea for Congress to be dictating the details of military strategy.Third Way urges Congress not to use funding power to control warAnd the Democratic Leadership Council under Harold Ford advises Congress to fund temporarily without deadlines. Useless also.
Short LeashWe've already endorsed the idea that Congress should follow-up the veto by putting the administration on a "short leash" -- providing a temporary extension of funding without withdrawal deadlines, but requiring the president to come back for additional funds with some sort of honest assessment of conditions in the country and a clear exit strategy for the United States.
These things might work under normal circumstances with normal people. I doubt Bush will cooperate. We do not have a normal person in charge of our military right now. We need to make sure the military understands the role of Congress so Bush can not manipulate them into thinking the "bad" Democrats are not supporting them. It is our job to stop his propaganda to them.
I find it amazing that the chairman of the DNC was told to take his cues from Congress and not try to set policy...but our congressional leaders take their cues from think tanks like this. They do not pay attention to what the people say. The decisions are made without our knowledge and without our input.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
