Serious question: Could the house and senate block Bush's call for 20,000 new troops if they wanted to?

Question

I'm not asking should they or shouldn't they, but just about the legislative process.

Answer 1

The "Commander-in-Chief" clause of Article II provides that the President may direct the activities of war, but only Congress controls the power of the purse (i.e. expenditures) and only Congress may declare war, that's in Article I of the Constitution. Therefore, Congress may direct that no funds be expended for an increase in troops.
Further, since this isn't truly a war (there was no declaration of war signed by Congress) this is a murky subject--the War Powers Act may also apply to limit somewhat the President's unfettered ability to commit troops (although I believe every president since Nixon has publicly stated that it was unconstitutional... it's just never been challenged, and the presidents have all consulted Congress when there has been a serious committal of American troops).

Answer 2

Yes, the only way congress can stop him is the power of the purse. The choice they have is don' t give Bush the money to send the troops. He sends them anyway with or without money. If they don't authorize the money then it looks like they are punishing the soldiers that are there. If they give him the money then they look like they are giving in to him. It's going to be a hard choice.

I think they should give him the money for his 20,000 troops. If in 6 months the status quo is 100 of our people getting killed every month then a new plan needs to be put forth. I don't think 20,000 is enough. He needs to send in 100,000 to do the job quickly. 20,000 is an apeasement.

He is also setting the stage to bomb Iran and Syria. He can't even handle Iraq.

I fear if he goes after Iran and Syria terrorist for sure will come to this country. I think he needs to show diplomacy which he has never shown during his administration.

Answer 3

Defense spending was set by the 109th. Congress at $498 billion in 2007. That can not be cut. Bush wants $5.6 billion for his troop movement. Bush also wants to give Iraq $400 million in welfare for jobs. Democrats could vote to cut of that money. Republicans will not support that move, Republicans will claim that Democrats want to cut off the bullets for our service men in order to try to make them look bad. Republicans will also claim Democrats are just being partisan or they don't support the troops. The American people see the truth, they also want a end to the occupation in Iraq. The bigger Question is: will Congress represent the will of the people or the will of Bush and Republicans that lost the elections in November?. WE will all see soon.

Answer 4

No. It has been brought up that Congress has the authority to raise and maintain an armed forces, which is correct. The forces Bush is using have already signed up for the military and he is not drafting or recruiting specifically for this operation, so Congress has already raised this force. The President has the power as Commander-in-Chief to use the military however he wishes after a war powers act or declaration of war gives that power to him. Since such an act was passed by Congress in 2002 with regards to Iraq, they cannot interfere with how the President positions and uses the armed forces.

Answer 5

Nope, Bush is well within his boundaries as commander in chief to do so. Once Congress approves the Commander in Chief to wage war, it is his job to do whatever is necessary to prevail. The only thing congress can do is cut funding for the military. They won't due that because they don't want the troops to suffer from a decision the President made.

Answer 6

I don't believe so. All the House and the Senate could do is cut the spending. But then as Pres. Bush said last night they would have to explain that to the american people! So i'm thinking they won't do it!

Answer 7

Congress can only declare war. The president is commander-in-cheif and therefore can send the troops anywhere he wants to. The difference is that if other countries had declared war on the middle east and were trying to get us to join, the president can send troops to deliver supplies but only congress can actually make the country enter the war as an ally.

Answer 8

They could embarass him so badly with a no-confidence vote that he would have to rethink the strategy, and yes, they could cut off all new funding for the war or de-authorize the use of force resolution that they passed before the invasion, but the republicans would crucify them with misleading TV commercials about "taking away money from the troops when they need it most" if they did that.

Answer 9

one way could be to question the president of war crimes and offering mis-maximum advantageous recommendations to the Congress of U.S. yet, this could produce a worst case, as a results of fact Cheney could take the helm and the sturdy Lord knows what this nut case could do. yet another case could be to call for an substitute to the form to alleviate the President in his function as CINC, each and every of the above create genuine messy situiations. the main suitable answer could be to come to a decision on a President that would end this helpless war.

Answer 10

Tme elected Mr Bush as worst teammate ever. They are afraid of him, hes gone insane. If they want to, they can issue 20,000 or more summons for each soldier and cal them to congressional hearings to get them home, they ought pass a new law in Senate, one that says if they suspect the President is crazy they can remove him from office and do so. You watch, his heart is to go to war with Iran as well.