'Congress has power to stop (Iraq) war': The Swamp

Posted January 30, 2007 1:31 PM

Posted by Frank James at 1:23 pm CST

Congress can't usurp the military role of the president as commander-in- chief during wartime but lawmakers definitely call the shots when it comes to who the U.S. fights, for how long and where, according to constitutional scholars on Capitol Hill today.

Given that, the majority of the scholars said Congress would be well within its constitutional power, to draw the Iraq conflict to a close.

"In my judgment, a statute that says as of six months of the date of enactment, the U.S. shall no longer be engaged in hostilities in Iraq is presumptively constitutional," said Bradford Berenson, who was a lawyer in President Bush's White House from 2001 to 2003 who advised on executive authority.

"That would be if it could be passed presumably over the president's veto, it would be a constitutional statute and proper exercise of Congress's broad authority," Berenson said. "It would be constitutional on its face."

Barron cautioned, however, that this wouldn’t mean that if redeploying U.S. troops were attacked on the last day of the six months, that the president couldn't have them respond with defensive military actions that lasted days or weeks more.

As with all congressional hearings, the party in control gets to stack the deck when it comes to witnesses who will support the majority's point of view.

The Democrats chose three of the five experts: David Barron, a professor at Harvard Law School; Walter Dellinger, a solicitor general during the Clinton Administration and now a Duke University law professor, and Louis Fisher from the Library of Congress.

Barron was a Republican choice as was Robert Turner from the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia.

Not surprisingly, the witnesses the Democrats put their thumbs on the balance-of-powers scale for Congress.

"It is ultimately Congress that decides the size, scope and duration of the use of military force," Dellinger said. "And this has been recognized by administrations of both political parties throughout our time."

Turner alone was the witness who provided arguments that sounded as though they could've been written by the White House itself.

"In the conduct of war, in the conduct of foreign affairs, the president in fact is the decider," he said. "…Decisions involving the conduct of war, including where to move troops, whether to reinforce troops, whether to move troops from one hill to another, are vested exclusively in the president. And when Congress tries to control this power either directly by statute or by conditions through appropriations, it becomes a lawbreaker. It violates the Constitution."

There were at least two particularly interesting moments of the hearing. First, Iran. In the context of recent comments in which Bush appeared to be threatening the Iranians with military action under certain circumstances, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) asked if the Constitution required the president to return to Congress if he wanted to take militarily action against Iran.

The experts agreed that the president could act against Iran to defend U.S. troops or the national security.

But if Bush were to launch a large-scale, sustained military effort against Iran, he would need to come back to Congress, they said.

Then at the end of the hearing, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) who chaired the hearing in the absence of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) gave closing remarks which brought anti-war members of the audience to stand and cheer. It was like something out of a Hollywood movie.

Feingold, one of the administration's harshest critics in the Senate said:

"It is clear that this administration took the country into war on a fraudulent basis. With a president insisting we had no other option but to preemptively attack Iraq.
"Now four years into the war, we are still in Iraq and the president insists that we have no other option but to stay with no end in sight. As long as this president goes unchecked by Congress our troops will remain needlessly at risk. And our national security will be compromised.

"Today we have heard convincing testimony and anlysis that Congress has the power to stop a war if it wants to…"

That's when members in the audience cheered. Feingold tapped his gavel with one hand and raised his other to restore order. "Prove it!" shouted a spectator. "Prove it!"

Comments

I doubt that it will happen but I hope Congress pulls the plug on the two Neocon clowns in the Whitehouse, before they can start an all out war with Iran to go along with their other blunders.

Pull the plug and start the impeachment hearings on W.
Deadeye Cheney would resign once he saw the writing on the wall.......health reasons.

Posted by: John E. | January 30, 2007 1:43 PM

I think it's time for Congress to step up and show President Queeg that his power is not without limits.

Posted by: Tony | January 30, 2007 1:50 PM

This Mr. Bush is not the sole decider regarding sending troops to Iraq or anywhere else. He is absolutely incorrect if he thinkls he is. He needs to read the U.S. Constitution. I do not think Bush is capable of comprehending that document though.

Posted by: Doug R. | January 30, 2007 2:15 PM

Does Sen. Feingold remember that a majority of Democrat senators voted for the war? Guess he assumes that reporters will conveniently forget that fact.

And for most of them, their current war opposition is based solely on politics, their decision that such a stance will play well in their party's primaries. Nothing more.

Posted by: Bruce | January 30, 2007 2:21 PM

Bruce those talking point are out dated. Ivestagations is going to put a hell of a lot of people behind bars. As to Iraq its done to many mistakes and to many people who never stood the Gray Line lying and not known what they are doing. Game Over

Posted by: Dale Peters | January 30, 2007 2:44 PM

Does Sen. Feingold remember that a majority of Democrat senators voted for the war? Guess he assumes that reporters will conveniently forget that fact.

Posted by: Bruce | Jan 30, 2007 2:21:18 PM

Does Brucie forget that Bush/Cheney mis-lead the Senators and the American people. They also outed a covert CIA agent to cover their lies.While over 70 % of the American people have figured this out,the hopeless few still remain loyal to a greedy bunch of liars.

Posted by: Raving Loon | January 30, 2007 4:28 PM

OK -- I'm with the spectator. "Prove it" Democrats...let's have your PLAN now. Face it, you can scream and yell at me all you want but that won't change the fact that the Democrats don't have a plan, just criticsm. You all voted for these guys! Why don't you demand they act on a plan? Really. I think that protester understands what I've been saying. And I think you all insult me and accuse me of using Republican talking points (this is my own point, by the way, I thought it up all by myself) whenever I bring up the glaring fact that the Democrats are unwilling to endorse a plan because you know I'm right. The truth hurts doesn't it?

Posted by: no name | January 30, 2007 5:01 PM

"...let's have your PLAN now."

Noname, look up about 2 topics on the swamp. Obama just introduced his plan as legislation.

Bad timing sucks, huh?

Posted by: Tony | January 30, 2007 5:09 PM

Does Sen. Feingold remember that a majority of Democrat senators voted for the war? Guess he assumes that reporters will conveniently forget that fact.

And for most of them, their current war opposition is based solely on politics, their decision that such a stance will play well in their party's primaries. Nothing more.
Posted by: Bruce | Jan 30, 2007 2:21:18 PM

Once again, Bruce, you've got it inside out and upside down.

The Dems were stampeded into voting for Bush's war. You do remember all the talk about WMD and mushroom clouds and all that, don't you? Fear was selling real well and a majority of the public was bellowing for us to "go over there and kick some ass."

Not everybody wanted war, though. Feingold certainly didn't and neither did hundreds of thousands of protestors who marched against the war. I'll bet most of the people who post on this board who you call that nasty word "liberals," were against going into Iraq from the beginning. I certainly was. The Democratic base was not happy with the war, ever. The nice little election we just had proved that not only were plenty of Dems unhappy but so too were a lot of self-described independents and even non-ideological republics.

Democratic senators and representatives (and even some Republics) are standing up now because the public supports an intelligent and well-planned end to the occupation of Iraq. It's funny how that works, isn't it? They are elected to represent us.

Representin' is hard work sometimes, too.

Posted by: Figbash | January 30, 2007 6:54 PM

"I think it's time for Congress to step up and show President Queeg that his power is not without limits.

Posted by: Tony | Jan 30, 2007 1:50:23 PM"

Tony,

I am still laughing.
Great reference to a great film.

'The strawberries.(congress) They were out to get me."

Posted by: C.Morris | January 30, 2007 8:06 PM

"Does Sen. Feingold remember that a majority of Democrat senators voted for the war? Guess he assumes that reporters will conveniently forget that fact.
And for most of them, their current war opposition is based solely on politics, their decision that such a stance will play well in their party's primaries. Nothing more.
Posted by: Bruce | Jan 30, 2007 2:21:18 PM"

Yes, but none of those items are crimes against the American people.

We'll see about prez Queeg (HA!)

Posted by: C | January 30, 2007 8:09 PM

Congress may have the power, but none of them have the "spheres" to do it.
Too afraid of the "cut funding for the troops" label sticking to them.
Does anyone really believe if the war were to be deescalated by Congress, the troops would be left high and dry while in Iraq?
What a ridiculous argument to be afraid of, but as I asserted earlier - no "spheres".

Posted by: johnf | January 30, 2007 8:59 PM

Nice try, Tony. Go visit my post in Obama love-fest topic #1. Until the Dems pass a plan they're still doing nothing.

Posted by: no name | January 31, 2007 7:31 AM

Moving the goal posts aren't you No name?

First you wanted to see the plan.

Now they have to pass the plan.

What are you going to demand after they pass a plan?

And what are the Republicans doing exactly? Following Bush over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings, with a few notable exceptions.

Posted by: Tony | January 31, 2007 8:24 AM

Why do former Bush lawyers hate America?

Posted by: short fuse | January 31, 2007 12:57 PM

We are here to stop the Iraqi war