Will The Congress succeed in limiting Executive branch power?

Question

Seems to me Congress is trying to micro manage the war on terror. I love the spin media puts on EVERYTHING. OK, not really.

The precise wording of the Democrats' measure remains unsettled. One version would restrict American troops in Iraq to fighting the al-Qaida terrorist network, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., intends to present the proposal to fellow Democrats next week, and he is expected to try to add the measure to anti-terrorism legislation scheduled to be debated later this month. Officials who described the strategy spoke only on condition of anonymity, noting that rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the details.

"These kinds of efforts have consequences," Fratto said Friday. He said that pulling troops out of Baghdad would result in chaos.

Answer 1

It was this exact type of Capitol Hill micromanagement that led to our failure in keeping South Vietnam from falling to Communist North Vietnam. When our senators and representatives believe that they know more about fighting a war than the folks at The Pentagon, any war effort is doomed to failure. Of course, they'll simply blame it on Bush for getting us involved in the first place...

Answer 2

They aren't going to limit Executive power, but maybe they can bring it to pre-Patriot Act levels.

They need to pull the troops out of Baghdad. The Shias and Sunnis will kill each other for a while, then Iraq will end up split into many nations.

The Democrats share Bush's ignorance of the problem in Iraq. You cannot overthrow a country's government and attempt to impose a new nationwide government in its place and expect to avoid a Civil War. Governments hold onto their power through fraudulent public relations schemes, special interest payoffs, and the fear of the people. That's how Saddam held onto Iraq, how the Soviets held onto Russia, how Hitler held onto Germany, and how the Feds hold onto the United States.

Consider this scenario... If the Federal Government collapsed tomorrow and the UN (or some other foreign power) decided that America needs a new nationwide government to rule the entire country and held elections for a government (which elected Fundamentalist Christians by a plurality; who impose their morality laws on everybody else by force), what would happen? Wouldn't America turn into Iraq, with an uprising of the remainder of the populace. That's what Bush did to Iraq by insisting on a single Iraqi government.

If we want to fix the mess in Iraq, we must pull out and let the Iraqis create their own small local governments. The Iraqi Civil War must end on its own, without our military trying to fight both sides. You cannot win a Civil War (and therefore stabilize a country) by waging war against both factions.

Answer 3

Fratto (whoever that is) might do well to note that putting troops in Baghdad is what resulted in chaos.

The essence of democracy is the limiting of executive power. No wealthy elite wants democracy, or the limiting of executive power, since their wealth comes at the expense of the public. The demands of the working class are diametrically opposite those of the wealthy elite. Democrats and Republicans alike are members of the wealthy elite and represent the interests of that group -- which is the reason why the Democrats find themselves complicit with all of the Bush crimes, including those against the Constitution.

Answer 4

The supreme court has already stuck down attempts made by congress to limit the commander in chief. The best thing that can happen is for the latest attempts to be struck down thereby reasserting, beyond question, the role the president has and the role congress does not.

Our forefathers took great care to ensure that once congress got us into a war, they could not back out by any means other than the very overt act of defunding. Even then, the commander in chief has executive powers that would allow the war to continue.

Answer 5

If the Democrats manage this they will lose in 2008 by a landslide. The whole point of this is to get rid of Bush like they think they got rid of Nixon in 1972. However, since Bush doesn't seem like he's rigging the Watergate Hotel with microphones, I'd say they are out of luck on this one.

Answer 6

Congress and State Repesentatives are appointed by the individuals. each state has 2 congressmen, State rep are determined by inhabitants. Any above will be voted out yet, their loose medical insurance maintains yet pay ends. the residing house is extra democratic now because Republican did not address themes until eventually proper earlier re-election time and the individuals did not purchase their destiny resources.

Answer 7

Although I would prefer an entirely libertarian or reform government, I have to admit, the government grows at a snails pace when there are dems in one branch and repubs in the other...when you have a single party with control over both the executive and legislative branch, the size of government (and their budget, and our future taxes) grows by leaps and bounds.

Answer 8

What propaganda. "Limiting Executive branch power"?

No. They're attempting to revoke the authority that CONGRESS (not the Constitution) gave this President for THIS invasion. That has nothing to do with Executive branch power. They want to replace the authority with a real plan. Why are you opposed to that?

Answer 9

The Congress giveth and the Congress taketh away.

When power is abused after given to someone that power should be taken away. GWB abused the power and now he must kiss it good bye.

Answer 10

so if iraq isn't in chaos now what is it? none of that will get through the senate. the dems are showing they have no spine, otherwise impeachment hearings would have already started.