Oh yes, they can stop the war ANY time. Now that democrats have the house, and since they don't like the war, they could stop it.
How? Simple, don't give any money at all to the war. Bush can't pay on his own, he needs the congress, and if the congress doesn't pay... the end.
They spend at least 2 to 3 billion dollars a month on that war, if they stop the cash, no more war.
+J+
2007-01-09 14:05:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well, the Constitution didn't foresee the rise of non-state actors. Which is what Al-Qaeda really is. However, the President has considerable powers as the Commander-in-Chief, and can deploy forces as he/she wishes. As a result of the Vietnam War, which was fought for 10 years solely by the Executive Branch, Congress passed the War Powers Act, which limits the President to a 90-day window. After that time, he must report to Congress. However, all Presidents, both Democrat and Republican, dispute the Constitutionality of this Act.
What could be done, is to totally stop all appropriations. This however would bring DoD to a complete halt-everywhere. They could also sponsor a "binding-resolution" which would mandate a withdrawal. Finally, they can indirectly bring pressure to bear, through defeat/filibuster of bills introduced by the President.
2007-01-09 14:09:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by jim 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
White House lawyers drafted presidential war power after 911 that pretty much let him do whatever he wants to for national security. I don't think there's way to stop the president if he decides to continue the war. He's the commander and chief and got some crazy lawyers to go along with him too. I don't think Congress can order troops home. Although they are looking at ways to block troop surge by cutting funding for it, but it's very tricky thing trying to keep funds for troops there now and cut funds for troop surge. Remember that war power resolution pretty much served as a waver for every law on this planet untill now. His lawyers argue the president don't need to follow Geneva conventions, US consitution and so forth long as he's trying to protect the country.
2007-01-09 14:09:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
They can do the same thing they did to end the Viet Nam war. They can refuse to vote any more funding for it. If there is no more funding, the material and supplies needed by the soldiers don't get to them and they will have to come home without finishing the job they started.
2007-01-09 14:08:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by Country girl 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
At this point it would be a mistake, because prior to the invasion there wasn't any chaos ... now Iraq is almost on the verge of civil war. The USA would be SEVER LY blamed for suddenly pulling out and leaving it in this condition.
2007-01-13 12:25:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by americansneedtowakeup 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
About the only thing they could do would be to not fund any more money for the war, which would be political suicide.
Other than that, they can sit back and debate it all they want to and make suggestions and pass resolutions saying they don't like it.
2007-01-09 14:05:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by bkc99xx 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
They can vote to cut off funding and need a veto proof margin to do it. This will never happen
2007-01-09 14:17:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Chainsaw 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
They finally cut off ALL funding for the Vietnam War.....if they hadn't done that we would still be there....LOSING.
The American people deserve this WAR...let em suffer
2007-01-09 14:06:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
cut all funding
but its up to the prez to withdraw the troops
2007-01-09 14:04:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by anonymous 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
bush just sent 20 troops to irak ... grrrr
2007-01-09 14:09:38
·
answer #10
·
answered by talent4god 2
·
0⤊
0⤋