Richardson's call to de-authorize the war requires a supermajority. What about Hillary's?

All three conditions are part of Clinton's bill. So if passed, Congress would have to reauthorize with no timetable and no cutting funds.

Even as Richardson one-ups Clinton with his proposal, he gives the impression that this is a simple majority vote, when in fact it has to be a supermajority in both houses. Wanted: 16 Republican Senators to de-authorized the war! If 16 Repubs stepped up to the plate and the measure is passed, the Supreme Court would likely get involved.





War Powers Resolution

Congress needs to set a deadline for withdrawal and cut funding to end the war

More on Congress limiting and cutting funds for war

but Bush will take to Supreme Court if override wins and if new minor low number of troops is all that is authorized - and who knows what the USSC will do as to war powers.

Even the funding cut off will be taken to USSC if passed over veto, and will then the USSC say Congress can only end the war through impeachment as the Commander in Chief may spend whatever to "defend" us, with or without congressional authorization? - This was the Reagan argument against claims his violation of the Boland amendment in the 80's was treason - and who knows maybe Reagan will be found by the USSC not to have committed treason - and we have been living in an elected dictatorship all these years, with the dictator/President needing only to cry "defense of the US" to take away any right or rule of law. I know the media supported Reagan on this in the 80's - and never raised a cry of "trason".

Impeachment seems to be the only way, as I suspect fund cut-offs will not work with this USSC - - so it is impeachment, or as Hillary says, elect a new president like Hillary that says they well immediately end the war after election (in Hillary and Obama's case "end the war" means leaving troops in Iraq for training and force protection - I do not recall the position of the others - but it amusing to see folks pretend that Hillary and Obama have different positions on future actions for Iraq, when these folks are mirror images of each other with only very minor differences in positions.)

All of these proposals are in reality, very complicated. Each seems to oversold by its proponents. I definately agree with you that it will be very difficult to find 16 Republicans to sign on any time soon - and we likely need 17, because they may be easier to get than Leiberman.

I think that Biden, Hagel and Levin already tried to get a blll that would in one setp de-authorize and re-authorize in a more constrained fashion the war. Earlier in committee, Kerry spoke in mid January of doing that where the reauthorization would match the Kerry/Feingold prescibed actions. The Biden/Hagel/Levin plan gave Bush more latitude than that and it failed to get cloture.

I think that many Senators would have problems if Hillary literally means de-authorize it, then in a second bill authorize it. They wouldn't trust us to pass the second part, for good reason. :) If I understand it this bill de-authorizes the war in October. I still don't understand exactly what they are proposing.

I suspect that this is a bill directed at Edwards - so she can point out she voted for the Byrd amendment and he didn't. It should be noted that Biden and Dodd also voted for the Byrd amendment.

Dodd (and Kerry and Harkin) also voted for the Durbin amendment that would have explicity limited the reason to imminent thread from WMD instead of the vaguer IWR definition.

None of these provisions would likely have stopped Bush - look at the signing statement on the IWR.

whatever you see proposed as legislation is a 67 vote problem in the Senate - so House Impeachment is the only way to get his attention - and there we need only 50% of the vote.

because it seems they want to pass a bill that causes the current authorization to end in October. So, was Bryd introducing the need for a bill to de-authorise and re-authorize simultaneously - with a goal this be done in October? If it's one bill, it's not clear how this differs from Biden/Hagel/Levin which failed earlier this year.

To convict Bush/Cheney in the Senate after the House impeaches requires 67 votes.

Form the Constitution:
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6--"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm

Biden/Hagel/Levin - that was the Jan 2007 resolution expressing the thoughts of the Senate as to prior resolution called the IWR. I'm not sure that a resolution, while good enough to get us into war, and a law in 2002 (Public law 107-243),is strong enough legally to get us out - but then perhaps nothing is.

Biden/Hagel/Levin resolution at the time seemed to be a rather timid approach, but perhaps timid was needed at the time as Dems take time and effort and small steps to develop a spine these days. And perhaps a second resolution would have done the trick.

Hillary's law does indeed sound like a repeat of Biden/Hagel/Levin.

But House impeachment is majority vote - and is the only thing we can accomplish these days until the next election in 08.

though there are far worse things than being impeached you can already say with Bush

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/washington/04cong.html?em&ex=1178424000&en=759110b78a00b3e8&ei=5087%0A

<snip>

Talking to reporters after her floor speech in a mostly empty Senate chamber, Mrs. Clinton indicated that her view was that rescinding the original vote would mean that troops would be out as of October. “They have no authority to continue,” she said. “That is the point.”

Later, however, her aides said Mrs. Clinton was not seeking a total withdrawal of troops from Iraq, or a quick pullout that could put troops at risk. They said she had called for a phased pullout that would leave a reduced American force to pursue terrorist cells in Iraq, support the Kurds and conduct other missions — a position she continued to support, her aides said.

<snip>

So her pro-war, keep the troops in Iraq policy has not changed at all? How is this any different than the neocons dreams of permanent bases?

there would be a temporary residual force. You can see what she's had to say about it here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=3529

In other words, HRC favors continuing the war only on a smaller scale with no timetable or actual figure as to the "residual force" (75,000 "non-combat" troops?)...

she just said "a vastly reduced residual force" that would stay only if necessary: "the bottom line for me is that we will begin redeploying our troops as soon as I am President, and we will do so in as expeditious a manner as possible. We will survey the situation to determine whether there are any remaining vital security interests by 2009 . . ."

She has made it clear that she wants nothing permanent and that she will end the war. I expect that she will give more details over this in the months to come. Obama and others have also said that they would have a residual force.

Obama and HRC have the same position on the war today but Edwards wants to end the war. He will take all the troops out except for the small number needed to protect the embassy, which we have in every country. There are other candidates who favor ending the war as well.

HRC is being as vague as possible on Iraq. "Vast reduced residual force" is a telling example. What exactly does that mean? She also talks about "determining" if there are "vital security interests"--after the blank check for her being in the WHite House for four years is signed. She should tell us before the election what exactly she wants and when she will end the war.

Sure, she does not want anything permanent. How "temporary" is is "temporary", though?

We have no idea what things will look like in 2009 when the next president takes office. I'm sure she'll elaborate over the course of the campaign - it's still very early yet.

It seems odd she would say something that definitive and then have it changed 180 degree by her aides. If anyone else said it, it would be called a very quick flip/flop/flip.

told a few times on air to check the Obama and Clinton positions and note that they are the same - and each time he looks surprised.

The second time he looked surprised, I looked surprised at the TV because I had not realize how much of his schtick is an act/a con job. I also noted that CNN has finally dropped their assertion she every said anything contrary to her current position re residual force only and no permament base.

Hillary has always rejected the 14 permanent bases built by Bush - although I expect our troops left in country for the training mission, being of very limited number, would be stuck on one of those bases so as to limit the need for excessive force protection troops.

They are by no means perfect, but there quotes are usually accurate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/washington/04cong.html?em&ex=1178424000&en=759110b78a00b3e8&ei=5087%0A

May 4, 2007
Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War
By CARL HULSE and PATRICK HEALY

WASHINGTON, May 3 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal brings her full circle on Iraq — she supported the war measure five years ago — and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House.

“It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible,” Mrs. Clinton said as she joined Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in calling for a vote to end the authority as of Oct. 11, the fifth anniversary of the original vote.<snip>

The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve.<snip>

She supported the war early on, but she has turned into a staunch critic of the administration’s performance on Iraq. She has been saying that she granted Mr. Bush the authority to go to war based on intelligence reports at the time, but that the reports have since proved wrong.<snip>

Mrs. Clinton pointedly noted that she voted in 2002 to put a one-year limit on Mr. Bush’s war authority, an effort led by Mr. Byrd that failed. Mr. Edwards had opposed that limit.<snip>

Later, however, her aides said Mrs. Clinton was not seeking a total withdrawal of troops from Iraq, or a quick pullout that could put troops at risk. They said she had called for a phased pullout that would leave a reduced American force to pursue terrorist cells in Iraq, support the Kurds and conduct other missions — a position she continued to support, her aides said.<snip>

If the White House and Iraqis failed to meet certain benchmarks for progress, according to the proposed legislation, Mr. Bush would need to seek new authority from the Senate to continue in Iraq, which would render the 2002 authority moot, her aides said.<snip>

she uses weasel words. Look at this quote from last month.....

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_War_+_Peace.htm

No permanent bases, but continuing residual force in Iraq

we do not plan a permanent occupation or permanent bases, but there may be a continuing mission to protect America's vital interests, and to support an Iraqi government that we hope to be an ally going forward, assuming they are acting responsibly. So, the bottom line for me is that we will begin re-deploying our troops as soon as I am President, and we will do so in as expeditious a manner as possible, as few troops as necessary with no permanent occupation, and no permanent bases.
Source: Virtual Town Hall on Iraq, sponsored by MoveOn.org Apr 10, 2007


A "continuing mission"? Does that mean the US palace/ Embassy with 5000 employees, support troops and contractors? No permanent bases? Where will the residual (75,000 or so) troops be staying? In a freaking hotel? We didn't build those four monstrous US bases in the desert for nothing. Weasel words if you ask me. :(

I am talking about what Hillary and many others have said in regard to leaving a awful lot of troops and contractors in Iraq to "protect our interests". It sounds to me like we are there for the long haul...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=191160


<snip>

3. "Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach": This is a loophole of loopholes that could add up to almost anything as, in a pinch, all sorts of Sunni oppositional forces could be labeled "al-Qaeda."

An Institute for Policy Studies analysis suggests that the "protection forces" and advisors alone could add up to 40,000-60,000 troops. None of this, of course, includes U.S. Navy or Air Force units stationed outside Iraq but engaged in actions in, or support for actions in, that country.

Another way of thinking about the Democratic withdrawal proposals (to be vetoed this week by the President) is that they represent a program to remove only U.S. "combat brigades," adding up to perhaps half of all U.S. forces, with a giant al-Qaeda loophole for their return. None of this would deal with the heavily armed and fortified U.S. permanent bases in Iraq or the air war that would almost certainly escalate if only part of the American expeditionary forces were withdrawn (and the rest potentially left more vulnerable).

No less strikingly, in an era in which the "privatizing" of state functions is the rage, the enormous mercenary forces of private "security" companies like Blackwater USA, now fighting a shadow war alongside U.S. troops in Iraq, would be untouched. On this point, Jeremy Scahill, author of the bestseller, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, has much to say in a recent post at Tomdispatch.com. He writes: "Even if the President didn't veto their legislation, the Democrats' plan does almost nothing to address the second largest force in Iraq -- and it's not the British military. It's the estimated 126,000 private military ‘contractors' who will stay put there as long as Congress continues funding the war."

than the neocons. Not one bit surprised.

Thanks for your info here leftchick.

of the AUF from 2002. There are several reasons why a "super majority" isn't needed and from what I see, you have chosen to ignore all of these. Which makes me wonder if this post is really more about being "anti-Hillary" than it is about being "anti-war". And I'm not a Hillary supporter.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is the existing statutory law governing Presidential and Congressional War Powers. It was passed by a "super majority" of Congress in 1973, over Richard Nixon's veto. It is the law of the land at present, and would have to be rescinded by Congress or declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court for this to change.

The War Powers Resolution, stipulated that Presidents must go to Congress for Authorization for Military Force, or a Declaration of War, within 60 days of hostilities. President Bush has already tacitly agreed with the Statutory Law per the War Powers Resolution, as he requested Congressional approval before beginning his Iraq War, in October 2002.

Declarations of War and Authorizations to use Military Force, are Joint Resolutions of Congress. They have been passed with the House and Senate meeting in joint session. Therefore they are immune to a filibuster and are subject to only a majority vote of the jointly assembled Congress for passage. And they are not submitted for Presidential concurrence or veto, under the power of Congress to declare war, based upon Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, which vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war.

So what Senator Clinton and Senator Byrd are doing, will work and will bypass President Bush completely. If the old AUF is revoked, Congress can pass a new AUF with different parameters and a different military mission. The only role in this for the President, is to carry out the war instructions of Congress, in his Constitutional role as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

The Congress gives the President his war time "marching orders". The President must carry out the wishes of The Congress. People are confused about the powers of the different branches of the government. Bush isn't "Commander in Chief" of the entire nation for war purposes. He only commands the Armed Forces. The "Commander in Chief" of the Nation in war matters, is solely the United States Congress. Our founding fathers in their wisdom, took the power to wage war away from the king (president) and placed it with the people.

If the AUF revocation is introduced as a standard resolution, it would be subject to filibuster and veto by the President, as the original post in this thread stated. And I used the wrong terminology in my post above and need to substitute "concurrent resolution" for joint resolution. For a joint resolution still has to go through committee, both Houses of Congress, as is potentially subject to a filibuster in the Senate and a Presidential veto as well. A concurrent resolution is different.

A concurrent resolution normally isn't ever submitted to the President for signature. So it isn't subject to veto. And under the current rules of the Senate, a budgetary concurrent resolution can't be filibustered. Now here's where it gets fun.

I can see a way that the 2002 Iraq AUF could be negated, without being revoked. And done using a simple concurrent resolution. And to be sure that it's immune to filibuster, done as part of the budgeting process for the military and war budget for 2008 as a budgetary concurrent resolution. I think Democratic Congress intends to stop the Supplemental funding process for the Iraq/Afghanistan/war on terror that Republicans utilized that kept this funding out of the standard budget, in order to project lower deficits. I believe the Democratic Congress intends to include war funding in the standard budget due October 1, 2007, for FY 2008. That will help us here.

There is a back door way to end the war. Congress has to invoke Section 5(c) of the War Power Resolution of 1973. This clause says....

c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

In this concurrent resolution, Congress simply has to review the goals of the 2002 AUF and declare that mission completed. And with the 2002 AUF completed, invoke clause 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, requiring the President to either withdraw our troops in 60 days, or request a new AUF with "specific statutory authorization" for the current "post war occupation/security mission" in Iraq.

From that point, the Democratic Congress is "driving the car", as regards the mission in Iraq. It will no longer be the President conducting operations authorized in 2002. That mission is completed. He will have to seek new authority, and that mission will be written by the new Congress.

That's my plan. It's not subject to filibuster, nor is it subject to Presidential veto. And I think it might just wipe the smirk right off of chimpy's face. All they could do is challenge it in court. And I believe Congress would have a very strong Constitutional case. Heck going to court with this is better than endless Bush controlled war.

Everyone needs to read the text of the IWR. Here is the meat of the IWR:

3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
1. reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
2. acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
1. SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
2. APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."

Usually wars end with a peace treaty. A better argument is to issue a resolution that we are no longer at war with the government of Iraq, e.g., that the new government of Iraq poses no threat to the U.S. and has complied with all U.N. resolutions, and the previous IWR is MOOT. (In fact it is our puppet regime which we supporting a civil war.) THEN, inform the President that he is in violation of the war powers act for using U.S. troops to intervene is a civil war and demand withdraw of U.S. troops FORTHWITH.

In the end, it won't matter. Bush is determined to thumb his nose at the Congress and people. The best options are defunding and impeachment. Following the veto, any further filibustering in the Senate will backfire on Repubs. They can't accuse Dems of not supporting the troops if they are filibustering the money. They are caught in the box on this.

Bush, like the Emperor Jones, is determined to stay until the end. Impeachment it must be.

So let us cut to the chase and start the impeachments. Executive privilege doesn't work in impeachment hearings. We start with Gonzo. Cheney is next, and does not get replaced by appointment.
Last is junior Shrub.

To paraphrase Jefferson in the modern age, the tree of liberty is watered with the conviction of tyrants.


http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

It is noted as you illustrated, as a specific statutory authorization per the War Powers Act, section 5(c). And I see you also see the way out of the box of having a vote to revoke the 2002 AUF. All the discussion I have heard with Clinton/Byrd is about revoking the AUF. But that's likely to be subject to filibuster and veto, as it will be a standard Congressional resolution. We have to avoid that problem.

And the answer is, to simply declare victory in Iraq under the terms of the 2002 AUF. I have read the AUF and can't find any of the tasked mission that hasn't been completed. So as Hart2008 says, we make the old AUF moot by declaring victory and invoking section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, requiring the President to withdraw the troops. And we do that by concurrent resolution, as per the War Powers statute, as it isn't subject to Presidential affirmation by signature or veto.

The message we make to the public, is this action was necessary because of "mission creep" in America's mission in Iraq, that occurred during the last 4 years under the previous Republican Congress and was ignored. And that no Declaration of War or Authorization for Use of Military Force, is an open ended commitment by Congress or the American people for diversion of our troops away from the original purpose and mission.

I believe the public will agree with this logic and Bush will be forced to either withdraw our troops in 60 days (with the possibility of 30 days extension), or go to Congress for a new Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq (AUF 2007). Congress will then be able to limit the role our soldiers play in Iraq in the future and transition them from a Combat role, to one of training, force security, and terrorist interdiction. With troop levels being a small fraction of the current levels, to zero. The best option would be to remove all troops and stage any needed to interdict terrorist threats, from the periphery, perhaps Kuwait or Turkey.

The current mission is "mission creep", or "bait and switch".

By removing Hussein we took the lid off a nasty internal political problem, but U.S. troops should not continue to occupy the country as a neocolonial force of coercion.

We declare "mission accomplished" and get out, since the stated mission was accomplished.

The unstated mission is to control Iraqi oil, and this mission will continue until the articles of impeachment are filed, or conviction in the Senate.

This is worth highlighting

Everyone needs to read the text of the IWR. Here is the meat of the IWR:

3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

A simple resolution that the terms of the previous IWR have been completed should suffice, i.e., that Iraq no longer poses a threat to the U.S. and has met all U.N. Security Council resolutions.

THEN advise the President he is in violation of the War Powers Act for involving U.S. troops in a civil war in Iraq.

In the end, it won't matter. Impeachment shall be required.

See my previous post above.

A simple majority vote does not revoke the authorization, otherwise Congress would simply do it. Why would they waste time on a non-binding deadline?

Saying it doesn't make it so. Supermajorities are needed to declare and end wars.

On edit: Nothing short of this will have the force of law to force Bush to act, that is unless he signs legislation passed by a simple majority.

Senator Feingold and Senator Leahy.

Can you point to the section of the war powers act where it requires a super majority for a concurrent resolution? The reason that this tactic hasn't been used is that it will wind up in the courts. There are some constitutional questions regarding the War Powers Act, especially this tactic.

So none of that stuff now applies. It's been superseded by the War Powers Act.

The solution to the Iraq War problem and Bush's intransigence, lies in exercising Congress' power under the War Powers Act. And it was written to allow Congress to bypass a President that was intransigent about bypassing Congress to fight a war, which is the exact dilemma we face at present. That's why the War Powers Resolution reserves for Congress the power to end war specifically by Concurrent Resolution, in precisely the manner I've outlined.

However, I haven't been able to determine if a concurrent resolution can be filibustered. I know it can't be vetoed. And I know one type of concurrent resolution can't be filibustered, under current Senate rules, and that is a budgetary concurrent resolution. But there are limits on "germane" amendments to budgetary concurrent resolutions and I'm not sure the parliamentary maneuvers necessary to structure this concurrent resolution to avoid filibuster. The white hairs in Congress can figure that out. There likely is a way to accomplish this and avoid both filibuster as well as veto.

It will likely wind up being tested in the Supreme Court. I would think if Bush sued Congress on this bill, that it would be rapidly expedited for a Court hearing. I think Congress stands on firm Constitutional grounds on this issue and that the Administration and it's fringe belief in a "Unitary Executive" will lose. And we need to accomplish the judicial demise of this loony theory to end the NSA abuses and the loss of our precious Habeas Corpus rights. This gets the issue in front of the Supreme Court very quickly. And I believe we will win.

In February, Diane Feinstein proposed de-authorizing the war.

It can be vetoed!

At least not in the way you envision. You have to realize that the 2002 AUF is what I call a "dependent resolution". It was required by the existing supreme statutory law regarding American military actions overseas, which is the War Powers Resolution of 1973. So we don't have to take the intermediate step of revoking or de-authorizing this "dependent resolution", with a new dependent resolution. We simply act within the authority of the guiding law of the land, the War Powers Act, and bypass any intermediate legislative action regarding the 2002 AUF. Congress just evokes the 5(c) clause of the War Powers act, because our troops in Iraq are no longer authorized by the 2002 AUF (per the requirments of the WPA 1973), as their mission has changed (mission creep).

What Governor Richardson has proposed and the options I have laid out predicated on Gov. Richardson's suggestion, is a Congressional course of action that simply can't be vetoed. That's why we skip the step trying to pass a resolution de-authorizing the 2002 AUF. There is simply no need to do that. Congress obviously intended to protect it's right to review the engagement of our Armed Forces initially and at any subsequent time, should the President deviate from his authorized authority. That's why clause 5(c) exists in the War Powers Act.

All Congress need do, is pass a new simple concurrent resolution, clearing the mission of the 2002 AUF as completed, and the current mission of nation building in Iraq as not authorized by Congress under the 1973 War Powers Act. Thus per that act, Congress is evoking it's statutory authority to require the President to withdraw US troops within 60 days, or request a new Authorization of Force for Iraq, that identifies and specifies the current mission of the occupation of Iraq.

Bush can't veto this concurrent resolution. His only course will be to challenge it in court. And he will lose. And if the concurrent resolution is part of a budget resolution, it can't be filibustered in the Senate, so we will get an "up and down vote" and a simple majority will pass this resolution.

Set a deadline, cut funding, end the war.

In 1973, including over riding a Presidential veto to become the statutory law of the land. The only real recourse to those who oppose the power granted to Congress by the WPA in 1973, is to introduce a resolution to repeal the War Powers Act. Or ask the Supreme Court to rule the WPA unconstitutional.

For that act gives specific statutory authority to Congress to act to compel the President to remove US military forces from conflicts without Congressional authorization. And it provides that authority for Congress to act specifically by Concurrent Resolution.

There are some difficulties in applying INS v. Chadha to this WPA Statute. In fact, the WPA was referenced in the opinions of INS v. Chadha. And for 24 years since Chadha, Presidents have obeyed the WPA and not challenged it on these grounds. It's interesting to see who dissented in this opinion. It was the conservative wing of the SCOTUS, which is now stronger than it was in 1983.

White, J., dissenting.
Justice White argued that (1) the legislative veto power is absolutely necessary to modern government, as exemplified by the legislative veto powers granted in the War Powers Act of 1973. (2) The absence of constitutional provisions for alternate methods of action does not imply their prohibition by the Constitution, and the Court has consistently read the Constitution to respond to contemporary needs with flexibility. (3) The legislative veto power does not involve the ability of Congress to enact new legislation without bicameral consensus or presentation to the president, but instead involves the ability of Congress to veto suggestions by the executive, a power that both houses of Congress already possess. (4) Further, the Court has allowed Congress to delegate authority to executive agencies; therefore, lawmaking does not always require bicameralism or presentation. (5) Finally, the bicameralism and presentation provisions of the Constitution serve to ensure that no departure from the status quo takes place without consensus from both houses of Congress and the President, or a super-majority of both houses of Congress. In this case, the deportation of Chadha is the status quo situation, and the veto by House of Representatives of an alternate suggestion of the executive branch is perfectly reasonable given the purposes of bicameralism and the presentment clause.

Rehnquist, J., with whom White, J., joins, dissenting.
Justice Rehnquist argued that it is unlikely that Congress would have promulgated § 244(a)(1) without the corresponding provisions of §§ 244(c)(1–2). Therefore, the provisions are not severable from one another, and holding one unconstitutional requires invalidating the other.

There is, however, a trump card in any future debate in the SCOTUS regarding the War Powers Act by anyone using arguments from the majority opinion logic from INS v Chadha. And that is, the Constitution specifically provides the power to declare war, to the Congress. And when you read the INS v Chadha majority opinions, you will notice that the Justices point out the lack of a specific Congressional extra-legislative Constitutional power in that immigration issue.

There is a specific Constitutional power resting with Congress regarding the WPA. And it is located at Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, which vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. So you can't solely apply the logic of INS v. Chadha directly to this issue. INS v. Chadha is trumped by the inherent authority of Congress, independent of the Executive,to make decisions regarding declaring war. And it's why no one has challenged the WPA for 34 years and it's legislative veto power in section 5(c). A legal challenge to the WPA and clause 5(c) based on Chadha, likely wouldn't even be accepted by the Supreme Court due the Congress' inherent power on this issue, derived directly from the Constitution.

Not all Congressional authority requires agreement by Presidential signature. One example is the ability of Congress to Impeach members of the Executive or Courts. Another is the power of Congress to Declare War or Authorize the use of Military Force.

The majority ruling in INS v Chadha,was based on two Constitutional areas, bicameralism and presentment. Bicameralism wouldn't apply to my argument on using WPA 5(c), as unlike Chadha, both Houses of Congress must pass the Concurrent Resolution I recommended. The presentment argument is negated by the inherent authority of Congress based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, the War Powers Clause of the Constitution. Congress doesn't have to present a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force to the President for signature. Such action is an inherent power of Congress and isn't subject to Presidential affirmation or veto.

Two-thirds majority to convict and remove from office. Impeachment is a slap on the wrist without conviction, see Clinton. Declaration of war, two-thirds majority. Any action beyond a non-binding that doesn't require executive involvement or a two-thirds majority will be considered non-binding. There is no getting around it.

As they did in 1983 on this issue. And the question of the use of the "legislative veto" isn't completely settled law. There are still great differences of opinion among legal scholars on this issue. And there is the possibility that different factors in a Bush v US Congress regarding the WPA, might result in a different decision than INS v Chadha. It's interesting when one looks at the history of the legislative veto, that it was essentially an invention of wartime (during WWII) to allow delegation of war powers from Congress to the Executive, but allowing for final review by the Legislature. It was also used before WWII to reorganize the government in response to the Great Depression. So there is a long history of the successful use of this tactic, prior to INS v Chadha. And the fact that this one case overturned more statutory law than the entire history of the SCOTUS prior to that time, won't sit well with the originalists now populating the SCOTUS. They believe in much less judicial activism and much more in legislative authority derived from elected officials.

Read Justice White's dissent on INS v Chadha. I've read a lot of Supreme Court cases, and in this one, the overwhelmingly persuasive logic, imho, is on the side of a legislative veto being completely Constitutional.

To sum it up, Congress holds the Constitutional authority to Declare War or Authorize the Use of Military Force. The Executive wished for Congress to delegate of some of this authority to the President. So Congress did so, by enacting the rules for this delegation in the War Powers Act, an act that was approved by super majorities of Congress over a Presidential Veto. The Executive wanted the delegated powers, but objected to the section 5 (c) hold back of legislative authority.

Congress reserved the right in section 5(c) to reassert it's Constitutional role over war matters, by concurrent vote. The President objected to this and vetoed the War Powers Act. If we disallow 5(c)now, by saying the lack of Presidential review is unConstitutional, we are in effect, giving the Executive Branch two chances to veto this bill, which is absolutely unconstitutional.

The arguments of INS v. Chadha, should properly only apply to original legislation, not to derivative actions of the legislature regarding the clauses in existing legislation. In other words, the WPA passes the bicameral and presentment requirements of the Constitution, as it passed both houses of Congress, was presented to the President, who vetoed the legislation, but said veto was over-ridden by super majorities of both houses of Congress.

You got your super majorities in 1973. That was the sole chance the Executive had to stop that legislation. It would be unconstitutional to provide the President with a second veto opportunity or require super majorities of Congress to enforce existing and properly enacted statutory law.

However, all the arguments you make, are likely why Congress hasn't used this tactic to end the Iraq War. But it might be the best option, in the face of Presidential vetoes of Supplemental Budgets. Cause we absolutely do have the "super majority" issue on all those bills, that you keep harping about. So I really don't get your "super majority" objections. They already exist and we have no way around them at present, short of letting the money run out, which is a bad political choice. The only chance to avoid super majority requirements or bad politics or endless war, may come down to the WPA and 5(c) and the SCOTUS.

The Shrub is daring us to impeach him. Allowing SCOTUS to intervene will only result in delay. The constitutional powers of the Congress to declare, etc., are best left to the Congress to assert, not the courts.

If SCOTUS attempts to save his ass again, we make an election issue of impeaching certain obstructionist Justices. Either way, impeachment is a political issue, not legal. They need to be impeached. Gonzo is first. Cheney goes next without replacement upon conviction. Junior is last. Executive privilege doesn't work in impeachments.

;)

With the right candidate we can get super-majorities in the House and Senate if the present course of action continues, but only with the right candidate.

Therefore, congress can de-authorize it. The executive branch has no right to enter into war WITHOUT congressional authority. That is why this whole thread started out wrong. All the executive branch has in terms of power is the right to be commander in chief of the armed forces WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZES a war.

Also, Richardson bases his de-authorization on the War Powers Act.

https://secure.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/governor_bill_richardson_rips_presidential_veto