If our government was set up to be a series of checks and balances with no one branch having supreme power, than why can't Congress and the Senate impede Bush's plan to send more troops to the Iraq war? It would seem to me the presidents' powers extend into the realm of totalatarism, with his unstoppable power to wage war without his country's support.
2007-01-11 08:42:37 · 8 answers · asked by wsdmskr825 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
They aren't powerless, the Executive branch can order more troops to Iraq, but the house approves the budget. No money means no troops. Checks and balances.
2007-01-11 08:47:21 · answer #1 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are not powerless, they can choose to vote to discontinue funding the war at anytime. The reason they will not do this is because the support required does not exist and they know it. Even certain Democrats are threatening a filibuster is they try. Mark this Democrats, not Republicans are threatening to filibuster other Democrats. The Congress cannot and should not attempt to micromanage the war. They either support the war effort or they don't, but they do not get to pick and choose. It is amusing to me how many people have a short memory for the statements made. Many Democrats have proposed a troop surge, now that it is happening these same people now oppose it. The simple fact is the that Democrat Leadership will not support anything which might be seen as beneficial to Mr. Bush. In short more politics as usual. Do not for a second believe that these people have the best interests of the country or the troops in mind. What they are focused on is a failure for the administration and positioning for the 08 election . They will do anything to make their ambitions reality, including sponsoring an American defeat and embarrassment.
2007-01-11 16:54:54 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the congress already gave approval for the war effort four years ago. Once the effort is under way, as the Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, the President can send as many troops in as he wants.
The War Powers Act is something similiar to what you're referring to; this act says that the President can deploy troops in a wartime effort without the approval of the Congress FOR A PERIOD OF NOT MORE THAN 90 DAYS. After 90 days, the troops must come home unless Congress approves the war effort.
Face it - Bush is not the evil being or the lone architect of the war in Iraq as people would like to think. He didn't dream up the idea of invading Iraq on his own; he had advisors giving him information and input. He discussed it with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who gave their input; he even got the approval of Congress before ordering the troops. The only people he didn't get the approval of - because he didn't need it - was the Useless Nations in NYC.
Out of all these, Bush has been the only one to stick to the original decision; he's been the only one to have the cajones to stay the course. The going got tough, and a lot of politicians who agreed with him at the beginning are now seeing their political careers placed in danger, and are abandoning him. In my opinion, that's despicable. I admire Bush for having guts, even though I disagree with the whole Iraq thing from the outset.
2007-01-11 16:52:29 · answer #3 · answered by Team Chief 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the President is the Commander-in-Chief, he can deploy as many troops to where ever he desires. All congress can do is cut the funding but that would give the appearance that they do not support the troops.
2007-01-11 16:48:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, they're not.
What they don't want is to have to accept any responsibility. They don't want to be held responsible if the additional troops still don't help. They don't want to be held responsible if they deny the troops and the mission fails.
So, the fabrication that their hands are tied and they can't do anything.
They're simply doing a CYA action and washing their hands.
Legislators are cowardly animals for the most part.
2007-01-11 17:00:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are now beginning to see that the man-made system is a system of loopholes and politicians need to cover-up for each other for the shitstem to work, and when they cant do it openly, they fall back on the loopholes.
And the people will always be confused.
2007-01-11 19:46:33 · answer #6 · answered by mythkiller-zuba 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They gave him that power when they voted to start this in the beginning. Although one of them has said that he voted for it before he voted against it... that would be Mr. Kerry.
2007-01-11 16:48:29 · answer #7 · answered by Get Real 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because of our constitution. I thought this site was crazy:
http://www.enewsreference.com/blog.shtml
2007-01-11 16:50:45 · answer #8 · answered by internet browser 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋