By raising legal concerns about Congress setting timetables
for a withdrawal, experts said, the White House has raised
the possibility that it could try to check Congress not by
vetoing the Iraq funding bill, should it contain restrictive
language, but by declining to enforce what it deems
unconstitutional.
Congress did not declare war on Iraq, so who is the one being unconstitutional?
Where is the Supreme Court when you need it?
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Original source URL:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031507J.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031400269.html
Democrats' Resolution on Iraq Reaches Senate Floor
By Shailagh Murray and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 15, 2007; A05
After weeks of delay, Democratic leaders yesterday managed to bring to the
Senate floor for the first time a binding resolution that would bring U.S.
troops home from Iraq. But Republicans remained confident that they could kill
the proposal, and the White House threatened a veto, raising constitutional
concerns.
Democrats want the new proposal to supersede the 2002 resolution that authorized
the Iraq invasion. It would restrict troop movements and set March 31, 2008, as
a target date for bringing the troops home.
Republicans had blocked previous efforts on new war resolutions, using
parliamentary maneuvers. But they allowed the latest version to inch forward,
confident that they could still kill the proposal. A final resolution could come
later this week, and Democrats acknowledged that it is unlikely to become law.
Still, war opponents urged support for the resolution, declaring that the public
no longer wants U.S. troops in Iraq and that last November's elections showed
that voters wanted Democrats to end the conflict.
"Congress authorized this war, and it is in our power to bring it to a close,"
said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a leading war opponent and supporter of the
resolution. "More importantly, we have not just the power but the responsibility
to end a war that is draining vital national security resources in pursuit of a
goal that cannot be achieved militarily."
The House Appropriations Committee will begin consideration today of a $125
billion war funding bill that includes deadlines for bringing the troops home.
The White House has threatened to veto that proposal, too, and administration
officials said they have constitutional concerns with that legislation.
Yesterday's threat from the administration on the Senate's proposal was another
sign of how the White House is ratcheting up the pressure on Congress not to
adopt language that would restrict the president's flexibility to conduct the
war as he sees fit.
The resolution "infringes upon the constitutional authority of the President as
Commander in Chief by imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw U.S. troops
from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of
defeat," the White House statement said. "The legislation would hobble American
commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective
of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself
and be an ally in the war on terror."
The Senate resolution would require a "prompt transition" of the Iraq mission,
from the current full-scale engagement to three specific activities: protecting
U.S. infrastructure and personnel; training and equipping Iraqi forces; and
conducting "targeted counter-terrorism operations." The resolution would require
a phased redeployment of troops to begin within 120 days of enactment, with the
goal of sending home all U.S. combat forces by next March.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), who is
seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, said the 2002 authorization
is no longer relevant because it gave Bush the authority to destroy Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein --
neither of which remains a matter of concern. "If you want to be literal about
it, this mission no longer has the force of law," he said.
Republicans contend that Congress has no authority to dictate war policy, and
that Democrats are overreaching, possibly dangerously, by attempting to limit
Bush's options. "This is the memo that our enemies have been waiting for," said
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
"They would not declare war, nor end it, as the Constitution provides, but
micromanage it," said Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), a candidate for the 2008
Republican presidential nomination and a staunch war defender. "I've heard some
argue that Iraq is already a catastrophe, and we need to get our soldiers out of
the way of its consequences. To my colleagues who believe this, I say, you have
no idea how much worse things could get."
Administration officials said, if adopted, the Senate resolution would
essentially make Congress a "co-commander in chief," a competing source of
judgments on how to conduct the war. "The Constitution commits the exclusive
power to the president as commander in chief to make the decisions necessary to
conduct the war," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "This resolution
unconstitutionally intrudes on that authority by attempting to direct strategic
and tactical decisions."
The veto threat served as the latest White House warning to Democrats on the
perils of adopting language that would restrict the president's flexibility in
Iraq, and it underscored how the debate could eventually escalate into a
constitutional clash between Bush and Congress. Until yesterday, the White House
avoided raising specific legal objections to the Democrats' Iraq proposals out
of an apparent desire not to antagonize its legislative opponents.
By raising legal concerns about Congress setting timetables for a withdrawal,
experts said, the White House has raised the possibility that it could try to
check Congress not by vetoing the Iraq funding bill, should it contain
restrictive language, but by declining to enforce what it deems
unconstitutional.
The administration has generated controversy in legal circles with its frequent
use of signing statements with legislation -- in which the president signs the
legislation but indicates that he will not consider himself bound by certain
objectionable language. Experts on both the right and the left said they think
that this is an option the White House is considering taking if the President is
sent an Iraq spending bill containing language that he believes infringes on his
powers as commander in chief.
"I think that they are preserving that option," said Scott Lilly, a former top
Democratic aide on the House Appropriations Committee who is now a senior fellow
at the Center for American Progress. Lilly has conducted for current House
Appropriations aides extensive briefings on constitutional matters pertaining to
war spending.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the Matrix website http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website http://cyberjournal.org
Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html
subscribe cyberjournal list mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
