I've seen reports and heard comments from members of Congress and the Senate that they want to scale back the authority they gave the President to use force against Iraq. I'd like to know what people think the possible benefits of this policy would be, and even though it's unconstitutional, do you think that Congress would try this anyway?
2007-02-25 04:41:56 · 10 answers · asked by imadumas 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
They DO decide what taxpayer money is spent on, and it seems to me that the only thing they could do is vote to defund the war. What do you think would be the reaction of the public if that were to happen?
2007-02-25 04:49:54 · update #1
Because the US is (supposed to be) a democracy, not a dictatorship.
2007-02-25 04:52:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The congress can't force the President to do anything with the war. That is a good thing as I did not vote Hilary or Murtha to represent me. They can vote to stop funding out of the general funds, but they won't. President Kennedy signed the Wars Power act and Eisenhower added to it giving the Executive branch much more broad power over war decisions. They were Democrats and I bet the Congress now is wishing that had not happened.
2007-02-25 05:08:03 · answer #2 · answered by Mother 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Congress does give the funding for the military, and can demand certain action to continue the funding. Andrew Johnson discovered that not listening to Congress can lead to a complete loss of executive powers. Teddy Roosevelt showed the opposite. Congress refused him the needed money to sail his new Navy fleet around the world, so he sent them anyway. They made it half way and he reworded his request to Congress, asking simply for the money to get them home, which of course was by way of sailing the rest of the way around the world. Teddy got his way.
So does Congress have the power to dictate the war, or the President? The President is the comander-in-chief, Congress signs the paychecks. In truth, they balance each other in power, and, sadly, it is an intellectual game between Capitol Hill and Penn. Ave. to see who can outwit who (checks and balances).
Whether you are pro-Bush or pro-Congress, they are both fully within their constitutional rights.
By Congress taking away the funding for the war, they force the President to follow their advice and consent. Obviously, Bush wishes to maintain the invasion. To do so, he must now do it on Congress's terms. The benefit is that Congress is new and has 100 members, making it more likely that the American people will have their will imposed on the future of our military.
2007-02-25 05:05:38 · answer #3 · answered by king_of_new_england 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dude,
The congress speaks on behalf of the majority of the population who edemocratically elect it's members..
Bush does not represent the will and views of the majority.. his last poularity poll had only 25% of America supporting him.. and on a global stage.. his support plemmets to around 10%...
NO ONE except for the Neo-Cons, the ultra rich, jews and idiotic middle class wanna-be's (wanna be rich for free types) support this war.. so congress has and should have every right to make certain that Bush and all of his dodgy advisers are stripped of their war mongering powers..
I think it is congresses absolute privelige and DUTY to make certain this wacko called the US President doesnt start any more wars, doesnt completely bankrupt America and doesnt ignore things like New Orleans ever again.. he is a dud and the worst president in US history!!
2007-02-25 05:20:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Voted two times, that's new on me, i be attentive to he mentioned he could come back after his little lies on the United u . s . a . , yet i do no longer think he ever made it back, could have. yet, it nevertheless does not excuse the actual undeniable fact that he lied to the Senate and the Congress to get those votes. He lies approximately his very own lies, he merely can not seem to end telling falsehoods. His ideas does not paintings suitable by means of fact he merely tells one misinform conceal up the different. He says God advised him to be President, God advised him to flow to Iraq and kill all their people, kill our troops and maim the others previous popularity, never knew anybody that God got here and talked to , did you?. he's a 8 year previous bully, he consistently says we caught those style of terrorists, no we did no longer do something. He sits up in that workplace making out like he's examining together with his glasses on, what a phony he incredibly is, so in case you think of a guy or woman who can not even see that a preemptive is breaking the 2nd shape is so tremendous than that's your privilege. Dream on Dreamer, your occasion is misplaced contained in the wild and could never discover their lengthy in the past, so come what could, Your a gaggle of losers, so cry, cry all you want how tremendous your occasion is action speaks louder than words.
2016-12-18 10:42:13 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Put it this way, there is no higher authority than Bush while he is still president so there's nothing that libs can say or lie about that's going to change that.
2007-02-25 06:02:33 · answer #6 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They decide what the taxpayers money can be spent on. They are deciders too.
2007-02-25 04:46:39 · answer #7 · answered by Al Dave Ismail 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They control the money. If they decide to cut funds, Bush will be forced into the decision.
2007-02-25 04:52:18 · answer #8 · answered by Johnny Conservative 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They were elected by the people to represent their interests? Maybe?
2007-02-25 04:47:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
howa bout the mandate of the people i cant believe they let you in here
2007-02-25 04:50:16 · answer #10 · answered by matrixx096 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋