Does sepreation of powers say that even though congress signs the checks, it is up to the executive branch how to spend it, in this case specifically for war? Does Congress have the right to dictate when we must withdrawl from Iraq, or is their check signing power as far as it goes?
What do you think?
2007-03-28
11:14:23
·
7 answers
·
asked by
teachingazteca
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
There are a lot of different opinions given in the answers, so I think I will let the people vote!!!
2007-03-30
10:51:14 ·
update #1
I think it is a part of the checks and balance, Bush will huff, and congress will puff, and there is some where in the middle that they can agree. My problem is I don't think Bush is open to negotiation, I think he has his jaw set and that is just going to cause conflict between the two body's and the president and there will be no compromise and the ones that will suffer are the fighting men and woman that are just trying to do their job. Both Bush and congress will have to bend in order to avoid this.
2007-03-28 11:22:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Its a grey area. Clearly, Congress has the authority to declare war--and under the War Powers act to authorize military action short of an actual declaration of war.
The intent of the War Powers Act was to deal with situations like Vietnam in which the Executive (president) went beyond simply immediate response to a crisis by giving Congress a role in deciding policy--in short, the intent was to extend the concept of checks and balances to modern situations.
But the framers of the Constitution (and the drafters of the War Powers Act) never intended it as giving the president a blank check--in fact the opposite. But there is no provision requiring the president to return to Congress for an updated authorization, etc. Unfortunately.
The constitutionality of this isn't clear--and no one on either side of the aisle wants to open that can of worms. As it stands, Congress--and the American people--can express their displeasure. But other than using funding as a lever, neither Congress nor the American people have any say in the matter. Clearly, that is not the intent of the laws--or the Constitution. Bush's flouting of the Congress and the people--and the intent ouf our laws--shows we need to remedy this situation--possibly by a constitutional ammendment.
But for now, we're stuck with it--unless Bush and Cheney back down, Congress does cut off funding, or Bush and Cheney are impeached or forced to resign.
2007-03-28 12:13:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I wish people would really look at what is going on here. The combination of the president's surge and the time limit threat are causing the government of Iraq to get itself together much more quickly. The Al Sadr death squad (previously supported by the Iraq government) has left the area. They are working on all of the things they need to do to get their government to move forward. They are moving to take over their own security. Isn't that what we want? Why point fingers?
The combination of the surge and the time limit may very well result in the desired goal a lot quicker than just staying the course.
2007-03-28 11:59:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Congress can cut off funds - but it can't dictate strategy. The Congress has only the ability to use a heavy-handed tactic - the cut off of all funding for the war. In other words, it can't say that you can have the $1 billion if you use it to take hill no. 52. That way, if things really get bad, Congress can undercut the Prez by terminating all funding. Short of that, the Prez needs to be able to run the war (remember, we won't always have the incompetent W at the helm - someday, another Lincoln might need the authority to call the shots). In my view, the Dems acted in a very unpatriotic manner. I think that their move yesterday is going to backfire big time.
2007-03-28 11:20:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The seperation of powers and the three branches of Government mandate.
Each of the branches are seperate and equal
That means that the President is equal to the entire congress, and the Supreme court is equal as well.
Some of the Democrats don't understand that concept as they keep trying to be more than 1/3rd
2007-03-28 11:19:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Delphi 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
According to the constitution, the congress is wrong. I hope for the sake of the country that bush tells them to pound sand.
Congress has overstepped their authority for years and now do it with impunity. The time has come for americans to take back control of our country.
2007-03-28 11:36:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by rmagedon 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Whites number 1
Asians number 2
Spics number 45
Blacks even lower.
2007-03-28 11:18:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
6⤋