War funding bills & vetoes

[M14 Shooter]

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

(b) PROMPT COMMENCEMENT OF PHASED REDEPLOY MENT OF UNITED STATES FORCES FROM IRAQ
(1) TRANSITION OF MISSION.
The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in paragraph (2).
(2) COMMENCEMENT OF PHASED REDEPLOYMENT FROM IRAQ
The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes...

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.

 

[maineman]

I disagree. If the CinC does not abide by the terms of the funding agreement, he loses funding.

 

[CSM]

I disagree. If the CinC does not abide by the terms of the funding agreement, he loses funding.

Which is why the CinC vetoes that crap!

 

[Paulie]

If you could prove why the Iraq Authorization was constitutionally legal, then I'd be willing to admit you have a point here.

 

[maineman]

Which is why the CinC vetoes that crap!

I concur.... and if his veto is overridden, he lives with it.

 

[Paulie]

I concur.... and if his veto is overridden, he lives with it.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This is exactly correct.
We agree? Who would have thought?

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[Paulie]

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.

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?