[inchaaruutaa]

Originally posted by Aeson
Obviously. The question though is who has the power to end a war? If it were an actual war between states, the "end" would be when a peace treaty of some sort was ratified by the Senate right? See above.

[UBJ3kvP1]

Iraq is criticizing the vote, saying it abandons them and wastes the lives of those that have died.
These are also valid points.

And just so you know, draft is the only means of replenishment of the military.

[Immarsecice]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Iraq is criticizing the vote, saying it abandons them and wastes the lives of those that have died.
These are also valid points.

And just so you know, draft is the only means of replenishment of the military. So you enjoy being held hostage by a lazy country

[sicheAscems]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Imagine if Bush signed it.
Bush would be too stupid to sign a reasonable bill like this.

[Fksxneng]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I wish there was a chance he'd keep vetoing the bill until the Dems remove the bribes they put in it to get it to pass from it and submit it clean. As opposed to the bribes to Blackwater, Halliburton, et al in previous war appropriations bills coming from the Republican congress?

[DavidQD]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The Senate voted for a deadline and not a "goal?" The problem with that is the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief. Congress has no authority to order troops out or pass laws saying they must be out by a date certain. Congress cannot micro-manage. Congress can simply refuse to fund specific activities, and only leave funding available for specific activities related to execution of a withdrawal from the theater. Otherwise, the President would have a free pass as long as he was in office, once Congress approved any military action.

[Bgfbukpf]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I never heard you complaining about those "bribes." What part of my posts led you to believe I make distinctions between so called good and bad pork spending? But since you seem to, perhaps you can explain to me what peanut farmers have to do with funding offensive opperations in Iraq?

[Arexytece]

I am kinda surprised that this isn't on fark yet.

[shumozar]

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.

[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.

[Hftqdxpm]

The Governors can't control the National Guard if the federal gov needs them.

[htDgExh8]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
The Governors can't control the National Guard if the federal gov needs them. Correct, but the question is who decides that the feds need them. The country needs to be in a state of war or national emergency.

I don't think the president has the right to declare a national emergency by himself, and certainly he doesn't have the power to declare war.

[DuePew]

Originally posted by GePap
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.

I'd love to see the Dems impeach Bush.

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.

Since the President is the one with the power to make treaties - with the advice and consent of the Senate - he can't be compelled to make a treaty he doesn't want. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's the President who submits treaties to the Senate to be ratified - I don't think the Senate has the power to initiate treaties on its own.

[toponlinecasinoer]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
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.

Since the President is the one with the power to make treaties - with the advice and consent of the Senate - he can't be compelled to make a treaty he doesn't want. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's the President who submits treaties to the Senate to be ratified - I don't think the Senate has the power to initiate treaties on its own. As I stated before, if the country were to be in a declared state of war (which we are not in, so this discussion about a treaty is utterly irrelevant to the question of Iraq), and Congress really felt like it needed to make peace, and for some insane reason the President decided to carry out the war on his own, Congress would be well be able to impeach him. Or if not, as I stated earlier, it would simply cut the funding. The President would be forced to seek a treaty, and that would be it.

[prmnwoks]

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 By and with tells me the Senate is asking for a treaty to be negotiated, after all, its a treaty between a foreign power and the united States and the states are represented by the Senate (back then anyway). The Prez merely gets to negotiate for the Senate...

[Swidemaiskikemu]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's not particularly germane to the limited question I was answering, IMO. Its hard to imagine that the founders would give Congress the power to declare war, but deny it the ability to end what IT, and NOT the President, started.

I think Beserkers reply is correct. That BY means that the Senate says "psst, by the way, end this war."

And again, since we are not technically in a state of war in Iraq (since we are not fighting an actual soverign state), the way for Congress to end the deployment of US forces in Iraq would be to basically not fund the war, and stipulate directly that the President could not redirect a dime of money from anywhere else. After all, Congress does have complete control of the purse.

[MeatteCen]

Originally posted by GePap
Its hard to imagine that the founders would give Congress the power to declare war, but deny it the ability to end what IT, and NOT the President, started. Not terribly.

I think Beserkers reply is correct. That BY means that the Senate says "psst, by the way, end this war."

1) I have Berz on ignore. Thank you for not quoting him.

2) Give me evidence of the Senate ever ratifying a treaty not submitted to them by the President (or the Secretary of State, etc.) and I'll happily concede the point.