War funding bills & vetoes

Discussion in 'Politics' started by M14 Shooter, Dec 19, 2007.

  1. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,096
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,479
    Certain funding bills sent to GWB by Congress have been vetoed because they require that troops be brought back according to a timetable specified in the bill.

    Example:
    HR1591
    http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/1591S.pdf

    Congress has no constitutional authority to give operational orders to the CinC. If Congress overrides a veto and enacts a law that requires the CinC to, say, re-deploy troops from Iraq – how is that law constitutional?

    If the CinC signs it, that's the CinC agreeing to give the orders.
    If he doesn't, then congress is exercising a power it doesnt have.
     
  2. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    I disagree. If the CinC does not abide by the terms of the funding agreement, he loses funding.
     
  3. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Which is why the CinC vetoes that crap!
     
  4. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,514
    Thanks Received:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,338
    If you could prove why the Iraq Authorization was constitutionally legal, then I'd be willing to admit you have a point here.
     
  5. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    I concur.... and if his veto is overridden, he lives with it.
     
  6. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,514
    Thanks Received:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,338
    No, even I'm willing to admit that just because Congress overrides the veto, it doesn't mean that any part of it was constitutional to begin with.

    The Iraq Authorization itself has since become unbinding due to a few of the direct actions of the administration. I'm not going to support the Congress voting unconstitutionally, even if it would mean the end of Iraq funding.

    The CIC has control over the orders to the military. Congress has no authority to make any orders to the CIC as such, even in an appropriations bill. They should have realized their error from day 1, and not gotten themselves into this mess in the first place.

    If you really do want the troops home, the only candidate that will make that happen is Paul or Kucinich. From there, you really just need to pick based on ideology, I guess.
     
  7. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,096
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,479
    This is exactly correct.
    We agree? Who would have thought?
     
  8. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Congress has every right to restrict funding in a way that enforces oversight.

    They're just a bunch of cowards and have no cojones to back up their rhetoric.
     
  9. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,514
    Thanks Received:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,338
    Yes, they do, but they don't have the authority to give orders to the president regarding the military.

    They can choose to just not fund it if they want (and obviously be labelled anti-american troop hating terrorist sympathizers for doing so), but they can't give the president an order.

    I don't even understand this bill. It makes no sense. Congress has so much power that they're not even using, and instead they're FAKING an image of being 'for the people' by doing THIS.

    When will people finally GET this?
     

Share This Page