[extessarere]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Article 2 Section 2:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

That certainly doesn't mean that the Senate has the power to make treaties without the President. Any president that refused to sign on to a treaty congress wanted could just simply be impeached, and the new President would sort of get the point.

Since a treaty needs two thirds of the Senate to ever pass, and two thirds are needed to override any veto, any treaty that the senate had the votes to pass would inherently be veto proof.

The President is Commander in Chief of the United States Army and Navy, that is it. He does have the power to commit federal forces as he will, but of course only as long as Congress funds him. If congress does want to end a war, they simply leave it out of the budget, denying the president the ability to pay the troops, and most of the time, if the government can't pay the army or the suppliers, the war comes to an end. Also, such things as the national guard are only under the command of the President as long as they have been handed over to Federal authority. I assume State Governor's retain the ability to withdraw their forces from Federal service, and then the president could not issue those forces any orders, anymore than the President can give an order to a local police officer.

As for this bill, its a political stunt by the Democrats. The President will veto it, simply because not to veto it would undermine what this administration has been about from day one, establishing the primacy of the Executive Branch. And once Bush vetoes it, the Democrats don't have the political gust to simply end paying for the war and forcing Bush's hand.