Does congress have the right to override the presidents decision to send 20,000 more troops?

Answer 1

Yes. If the Congress overrides the veto by a two-thirds majority in each house, it becomes law without the President's signature. Otherwise, the bill fails to become law unless it is presented to the President again and he chooses to sign it.

Answer 2

Only Congress has the authority to declare war, and they also have control over the purse strings when it comes to this situation. Bush says he's going to do it anyway, most likely through Executive Order. Look for Congress to cut funds, if possible. A vote on increasing war spending by $100 billion will be coming up soon in Congress. We shall see who blinks first. There will also be a non-binding war resolution in the Senate that each Senator will have to vote on whether or not they approve of Bush's new plans for the war. This will more or less be a set up for the 2008 elections as candidates will be jockeying for position since the War will be the major issue. I don't think Congress will stop Bush's plan, but they will try to cut funds for it.

Answer 3

Yes. Given that that was never any declaration of war against Iraq by Congress, then President Bush had to get the permission of Congress to conduct the invasion and continue to occupy Iraq. He was given this authorization under Public Law 107-243, October 16, 2002. However, any authority he was given under that PL is superseded by the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973. This act was passed to prevent the misuse of the military by the Executive branch (due to the quagmire of Vietnam). The current situation is EXACTLY why the War Powers Resolution Act was passed.

Answer 4

Not quite. But they do have the power of the pursestrings, so they could, if they were brave, refuse to allocate the money for the additional deployments.

But notice how they're jawing and preening, but haven't the courage of their own convictions. This is because Congresspeople are cowards. They don't want to step up and claim responsibility for anything that might entail political risk and hurt their re-election chances.

Because, if they don't fund the deployment, and the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, they will have to shoulder some blame. But if they write a non-binding resolution - i.e. a stern letter - they can claim to the ignorant electorate that they were so very opposed to it, even as they agreed to fund it.

And they sink even lower in my eyes.

Answer 5

No, the President is the commander and chief. He can do pretty much what he wants to with the troops, since Congress gave him permission back in 2002. Intersting fact-the Democrats controled the Senate then. Damn, they sure do like to flip flop.

Answer 6

Presidents, kings, and other heads of state are just figureheads and scapegoats when things go wrong. The real seats of power in the U.S.is in the chambers of the congress and the senate.

Answer 7

I want to say YES. Because if someone can't override a decision made by the president then we now have a DICTATOR. Even with our present government quickly becoming a communistic/dictatorship type government it is NOT there yet. So again YES.

Answer 8

No, he is commander in chief. If they want to stop the war, all they have to do is cut funding. Which makes one wonder, if they are so opposed to the war, why have they not cut off funding? Well the answer is they are more worried about elections and being re-elected.

Answer 9

Do they have the right? Yes.
Should they? No unless they can handle the political fallout and the bad things that were to happen later.
If the US is allowed to lose, Congress will be to blame and all of those that vote for us to lose will be voted out of office.

Answer 10

I disagree with jdlifsey2030. People aren't going to blame congress for losing- the majority shows that most don't care if we win or lose- they just want our boys home immediately.