Is Congress seeking to eliminate the Separation of Powers?

Question

By adding stipulations on the spending bill, not to mention some serious pork, it appears that in a greedy power grab congress is trying to violate the Separation of Powers. It is obvious Congress is trying to prosecute the war., which is clearly not their job.
"Just as the president cannot raise his own funds (by obtaining loans unauthorized by Congress, for example), the legislature cannot attach conditions to federal spending that would destroy the president's authority to direct the military's tactical and strategic operations. This balance makes perfect sense; if Congress could closely direct how the executive branch spends appropriated funds, it would vitiate the president's core responsibilities as chief executive and commander in chief, transforming him into a cipher. This outcome would fundamentally warp the Framers' entire constitutional fabric."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011500970.html

Bruin - you may be 100% correct on all of your points, I am not going to bother to look, but by trying to prosecute the war congress is trying to usurp the Presidents job, or eliminate the Separation of Powers. It is clear that Congress can either fund or not, but they cannot place stipulations as to the management of strategy and implementation, that is the Presidents role.

Answer 1

I believe Congress is a nest of thieves..

Jefferson said every 200 years we will need a new revolution to clean up the mess.

Tyranny is clearly the agenda of the left. With the hoax of global warming and constant haranging of the administration our federal government is missing the boat on key things that are threats to this country.

Uncontrolled immigration
The rise of communists in Congress.
And terror cells that exist in the US until the radar.
(likely the cause of the dog /cat food contamination).

Answer 2

But it wouldn't "warp the Framers' entire constitutional fabric" to just not fund the war? If the Congress has the right, indeed the duty to determine appropriations, why can't those appropriations be conditional? You seem to imply that the choice that is congress' is merely a number including zero.

Who has the power to declare war anyway? Doesn't Congress have the authority to repeal the statute that gave the president the right to invade Iraq in the first place?

Sorry for my histrionics, but I just can't conceive that someone could accuse Congress of infringing on the Executive's power in light of the 700 and some odd signing statements accompanying the president's signature on bills passed by a predominantly republican congress.

Answer 3

Of course, This new congress sees itself having a mandate to take over the government as they won seats in the 2006 elections. I believe that the Republicans lost it because there is no agenda from the Dems. They want to marginalize, humiliate and see America lose as they are invested in losing today. They do not want America to succeed because the libs see America as the bad guy in the world and the congress will do whatever it takes to force Bush to make an apology for this war and libs hate him for that and want to take over the government.

Answer 4

You're quoting an opinion piece, not fact.

Here's what is in the bill:
Expand funding for veterans’ health care and hospitals

* The bill provides funding so the Veterans Administration can meet the obligations of a new generation of veterans.
* Bush Administration must meet military standards for troop readiness
* The bill fully supports our troops and ensures they have the tools and resources they need to do the job they have been asked to do.
* The legislation prohibits the deployment of troops who are not “fully mission capable” as defined by the Department of Defense – in other words, troops who are fully trained, equipped and protected. This a reaffirmation of current Department of Defense standards.
* The President can only deploy “unprepared troops” if he certifies, in writing, to Congress, that deploying those troops is in the national interest.

Iraqi government must meet Bush benchmarks for reform

* The bill requires the Iraqi government to meet the key security, political and economic benchmarks established by the President in his January 10 address.
* The Iraqis failure to meet these benchmarks will mean the beginning of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and will restrict economic aid to the Iraqis.

Strategic redeployment of U.S. combat troops by 2008

* If progress toward meeting key benchmarks is not made by July 1, 2007, a redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq begins immediately and must be completed within 180 days.
* If key benchmarks are not met by October 1, 2007, a redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq begins immediately and must be completed within 180 days.
* If key benchmarks are met by October 1, 2007, a redeployment of U.S. troops must begin by no later than March 1, 2008, and be completed within 180 days.
* Following redeployment, U.S. troops remaining in Iraq may only be used for diplomatic protection, counterterrorism operations, and training of Iraqi Security Forces.

Refocus military efforts on Afghanistan and fighting terrorism

* Al Qaeda is reconstituting, and the Taliban has grown stronger in Afghanistan.
* The bill significantly increases funding to defeat al Qaeda and terrorists in Afghanistan.

It's a PLAN, something this administration has never had from day one.

Answer 5

Ah the Planks of communism once again rears it's ugly head...Some of you need to attend the "Hold Their Feet to the Fire March next Month! Protest all of it!

The Citizens of the United States are going to have to grow some BIG, UGLY, Hairy Ones!

Answer 6

Might I remind you that it was the Republican Congress that took away line-item veto.

Answer 7

I think its also a ploy to appease teh far far far far way over the hill left wingers, if they try and succeed they please the tin hats... if they try and fail they can blame bush.. so it help solidify theor base for the upcoming political season