Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Who's advising Congress not to use their constitutional power of the purse?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:52 PM
Original message
Who's advising Congress not to use their constitutional power of the purse?
Even Bruce Fein on PBS tonight was adamant it was one way to stop Bush from doing things that hurt our nation.

I know of one group whose policies are influencing the Democrats greatly, and they recommend against using the power of the purse.

Third Way: Congress should not use funding to dictate management of the war

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.

..."We therefore recommend that Congress take up – either by free-standing legislation invoking the War Powers Resolution or by a rider on the supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq – legislation requiring the President to submit to Congress within three months a plan laying out precisely when and how American combat operations in Iraq will come to an end. Members should put a limit on the length of the President’s plan for an end to the war – we suggest 18 months or two years. Congress also should press the President to lay out the details, both through hearings and in his report – how the United States would begin to disengage militarily in Iraq. This includes the phases and manner of military redeployment and how American strategic interests in the region will be protected, etc.
http://www.third-way.com/data/product/file/69/TW_-_Pressing_on_Iraq_Memo.pdf


The full document is in pdf format.

The Third Way is connected to the DLC/PPI groups. With this president, their ideas are not going to work.

I prefer Russ Feingold's assessment.

How To End The War

Our 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.

....."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.


We have caused millions to be displaced. They are wandering from the border of one country to another, being turned down. Now Southern Iraq is saying they can not take any more of their fellow country men.

Someone has got to quit listening to the gravy train consultants.

Escaping Iraq



..."Ordered to gather up their luggage, the Jordanians escorted them out of the border complex and through a special gate back into Iraqi territory. Ahmed said the Jordanians prevented him from using the same driver who had brought them from Iraq, and who Ahmed had already paid US$500. With near-certain death awaiting at home, returning was not an option, so the weary father set out to find another driver who would transport the family to Syria.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm hoping no one now, after the blivet claimed their only responsibility
was appropriations. They now need to fight fire with fire, and cut the funds.
What a struggle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. What an amazing post madfloridian. Recommended.
Thanks! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Hi, mzmolly.
Good to see you. Thanks for the recommend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Good to see you too.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. All the lobbyists who fill congresses personal purses, big big money!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. That's how Congress got Nixon to get our of Vietnam. They did the bold
thing and cut off funding. Our Congress seems to be too scared to do this. It's torches and pitchforks time for real. Make them do it even if you have to drag them kicking and screaming to make them defund this war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. They seem to be lacking "bold" right now.
We need to push them to have it.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. I don't think that's the problem, it's that the squeaky wheels are being ignored.
Think Dennis K and the 30-somethings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. Right! They de-authorized the war + STOPPED funding --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 02:29 AM
Response to Original message
8. I don't think anybody's "advising" them of that...
I think congresspeople are smart enough to realize that cutting funding is a last-resort effort. Historically, congress doesn't run the operation of wars. The people IN congress understand that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Congress clearly has the power to defund a war, to stop a war.
No where in the constitution is "last resort" mentioned.

Historically, congress can vote to fund, or can chose to not fund anything anywhere anytime.

The reason this congress doesn't stop providing the money for the illegal occupation has nothing to do with history and everything to do with fear of being labeled soft on defense. If the Dem controlled congress had it's way, they would freeze the situation just prior to the 06 Nov elections and stay right there until the 08 elections

It's not working out though. American voted for change and they are well aware that the Dem Congress is more interested in blaming bush for Iraq than taking away his license to kill.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1640263,00.html

At 14% approval, I think it's time they actually gave Americans real change. They keep talking about "A change of direction" when they should be implementing a complete 180 degree reversal.

MonkeyFunk, ever read HR1234, the Kucinich bill to withdraw ALL US Troops and mercenaries from Iraq? If you haven't, I suggest you read it because it's the best plan I've seen, both from an American perspective and from an Iraqi perspective. It withdraws the US and it provides a means to rescue Iraq from it's US inspired cluster fuck.

If the Dem controlled congress were truley wise. they would line up behind the bill and educate Americans on the bill. At the same time they would set a date certain to stop paying for the current illegal occupation. This could be achieved by simply not scheduling a vote on any funding bills that pay to continue the illegal occupation. Sure the Dems corporate patrons would be pissed about the end of the gravey train. But the American people would be equally happy to be untied from the gravey train tracks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. My guess is it's the same old, same old PNAC fear-based threats . . .
Edited on Sun Jul-15-07 10:23 PM by defendandprotect
We can see this in the renewed attempts by the GOP to ACTIVATE the Iraq war rather than deactive it -- while also trying to drum up energy for attacking Iran -- !!!!

Involved in attacks on the US!!!]

i.e., "The Iranians are coming, the Iranians are coming, the Iranians are coming!!!"

That would make Pelosi and Reid the "tin hats" in the debate.
Soft on war.

You can see from Linsey Graham's exchange with Webb . . . he is gun ho on Iran --
and gun ho on Iraq -- Nothing is stopping his spewing the agenda.

They are dedicated to this robotic like trance in delivering their message . . .
because they know that's what worked for them before -- i.e., Gingrich revolution!!!

Be a robot and win!!!

Warner and . . . someone else . . . is trying to REAUTHORIZE the Iraq war.
You know, this is offense --

Strong on offense --

While the Dems have no Offensive moves -- and barely defend.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
9. These further suggestions in a DLC memo assume our president will tell the truth about Iraq.
That's been the problem. He is not your usual president, and you can not trust him...here are 3 things the memo says we should do...all based on trust. From April this year:

Iraq After the Veto

First, they should quickly pass a short-term and clean supplemental appropriations bill that will simultaneously give the troops what they need while forcing the president to come back and ask for more funding in three months. That will give Congress a chance to evaluate the administration's "surge" of troops into Iraq, which administration officials have assured us will show results by late summer. This is the logic of the proposal by Reps. Dennis Cardozo (CA) and Mike Ross (AR), which is under consideration by the House Democratic leadership.

Second, Congress should examine not only whether security has improved in Baghdad, but also whether the Maliki government has made a good faith effort to reconcile Iraq's Sunni community to the post- Saddam political order.p While there is too much glib talk about forcing the government to somehow deliver a "political solution" to the war, there's no doubt that real progress on the political front, more than U.S. troop levels, is the key to stabilizing the country.

Third, congressional Democrats should call for a diplomatic strategy to accompany the administration's military strategy in Iraq. For four long years, we've been fighting in a regional and international diplomatic vacuum. This makes absolutely no sense.


All good ideas indeed unless you are dealing with a unitary executive who can't even speak properly. Great ideas if you are dealing with someone who cares what you think.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Skipped the step that would have examined Bush/Cheney LIES re Iraq --
Edited on Sun Jul-15-07 10:13 PM by defendandprotect
THAT absolutely has to be dealt with --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
10. Dee eL Cee idiots.
that is who.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. As well as aipac & Lieberman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. them too and threee. yup
nmt/ (not much text)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 06:49 AM
Response to Original message
15. I agree with you -- Feingold's got it right
I believe he will be the first Senator to join Barbara Boxer in calling for impeachment. That is the ONLY way to hold this president accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
16. War is very profitable for the global corporate interests that the
Edited on Sun Jul-15-07 12:21 PM by Zorra
DLC represents, and they want the occupation of Iraq continue as long as possible.

An added bonus for the DLC and the business interests they represent is that the occupation of Iraq is spawning multitudes of new terrorists. The longer the conflict continues, the greater the number of terrorists spawned. Thus, there is the probability of even greater corporate profits to be gleaned from future US military operations/engagements against these terrorists.

The DLC, (most likely at the behest of the global corporate interests they serve), strongly supported invading Iraq from the get go. This war and occupation has been a tremendously costly mistake in terms of blood spilled, taxpayer money spent, and loss of respect for the US in the world community. It is arguably the biggest mistake ever made by the US government.

Furthermore,(ignoring the "Machiavellian" purposes of the DLC), why should any reasonable person continue to give any credence to what these fools propose, after they wholeheartedly supported the biggest screw-up in the history of the US?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Including our INTELLIGENCE community -- -
Edited on Sun Jul-15-07 10:17 PM by defendandprotect
Eisehower included "intelligence" in his statement re the Military Industrial Complex . . .

Twice Eisenhower wrote in "Military Industrial Intelligence Complex" and twice it was removed from his speech ---

This complex is covered in secrecy/nation security and far out of reach of the public to get to --
it has to be Congress which investigates. Meanwhile, they see to it that CIA-intelligence "enemies" are targeted and bounced out of Congress.

We have to knock down corporations -- and we better come to terms with the economic revolution because it's what delivered Global Warming to us.

And, there sure isn't much time left on that issue -- !!!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
21. they are repuke moles
that "rationale" could have been/probably was written by the WH, probably Rove itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC