If it its universally agreed that Congress has the power to declare war, and that the president's role is be the commander of the armed forced to conduct the war, then what is the disconnect about who determines when we undeclare the war (stop our involvement in it)?
Congress not only has the power to declare the war, but they control the money to fund the war and the armed forces.....which means other than directing troop movements or war strategies, congress is the boss of war making, and of the armed forces.
To me, a reasonable assertion is should the ease of undeclaring not be as easy as declaring? Why so easy for congress to make war, but so difficult to stop war? And why the attitude that they are traitors for cutting funds for a war they are stopping? Cutting funds does not mean harming troops, that is just a red herring, cutting funds is a last resort when the president is not listening to the boss of war declaring (congress).
2007-07-20 05:38:07 · 13 answers · asked by me 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It seems clear, that we mostly all agree, Congress does have war stopping powers via cutting funds, and they deem the war should stop, they should just inform the president they will cut funds by a certain time. A rationale president would then start pulling out troops to meet the deadline, so that he does not have troops on the battle field without funding. If the troops wind up being on the battle field and funds have expired, then the blame and traitor to the troops tag should rest on the president's shoulders. But we dont even have to cross that particular bridge, cause, lets say the troops are 90% out but it looks like money is about to run out and we need a few more days and a bit more money, I am sure the president could ask Congress for an emergency funding to make sure the rest of troops come home safely.
NO one wants to turn their backs on the troops, this is only a false argument being made by the warmongers to make wanting to stop our involvement tantamount to not supporting our sons and daughters--which is insane.
2007-07-20 05:55:31 · answer #1 · answered by ron j 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They could stop it if they wanted to. However, they would have to pass a bill, like the troop withdrawal ones they they have tried to pass. Once they do that, it must be signed by the President. If the President vetoes the bill, it goes back to the congress, where they can override the veto by a 2/3rds majority vote in BOTH houses of Congress. The Congress right now doesn't have the 2/3rds votes needed to override a presidential veto, and they won't any time soon.
Therefore, they can't bring the troops home, nor can they end the war. What they can do is refuse to pass spending bills to fund the fighting of the war. If they do that, they are scumbags because they are screwing over poor kids that are over there. That is why people think they are traitors if they don't pass funding bills, but they don't have the votes to bring them home.
Until they have the majority they need to override a presidential veto, not funding the war is a spiteful crappy thing to do that will only hurt the poor kids that are fighting in it.
2007-07-20 05:50:19 · answer #2 · answered by joby10095 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is all in the Constitution. The president is the one who says where the troops go and when. He determines when the war is over but if congress doesn't agree they can cut funding and try to force his hand. If they cut funding and he still doesn't bring them out then you have just caused a bigger death toll. The reason that the president is given sole power is so that the troops don't have to wait on every move to pass a majority ruling.
coragraph is exactly right in what powers they have but just because they cut funding it doesn't mean that the war is over. Bush could decide that he will ruin the Democrats by continuing the fight with troops that have no supplies. I don't know if he would or not it is a game of chicken but I don't want that game to be played with our troops.
2007-07-20 05:46:10 · answer #3 · answered by joevette 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The only power congress has to end a war, once declared, without getting extremely crafty, is pulling funds.
And when you have a President who will claim that ending war funding is not supporting our troops, people aren't all that quick to jump on that wagon.
2007-07-20 05:45:33 · answer #4 · answered by Boss H 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Our founding fathers have been staggering of their decision to maintain congress out of the administration of any struggle. The worst element that would desire to take place is to have some hundred wanna-be generals all attempting to regulate the army. The president is the commander in chief and unquestionably would not even want congresses approval to pass to struggle, in basic terms fund it. The Congress would have ended this struggle at each time by way of defunding it. the priority is they're greater frightened approximately their jobs in DC than their so-referred to as convictions. they actually do not want to end the struggle staggering now, it would not earnings them politically. yet they're scared to dying of it nevertheless occurring come 2009 and the potential of a Democrat as president. would desire to the analyst that are watching for a nasty result if we pass away to early be staggering, they could then get the political spanking for the call to pass away.
2016-10-22 04:11:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Congress cannot stop the war, but they can stop the funding for the war. Unfortunately if they try to do this they get called American and are told they are not supporting our troops. Also unfortunately the democrats in congress are too worried about how America see them so they cave into King Bush. It amazed and disappointed me when Bush vetoed their spending bill calling for the withdrawal of troops and accused them of not supporting our troops if they didn't cave to him, that they didn't turn it around on him and accuse him of not supporting our troops since he wouldn't sign the bill. Bottom line, the president is a madman and the democrats in congress are too weak to do anything about it.
2007-07-20 05:47:16 · answer #6 · answered by crushinator01 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Correct.
But their power rests in two ways -- one to pass legislation under their Article I Section 8 powers to regulated the military. But any such legislation is subject to veto.
Two, they can use their Article I powers to control the budget and funding. That is not subject to veto, because they cannot be compelled to approve funds.
So, Congress could have ended the US occupation of Iraq at any point simply by cutting off further funding.
They refuse to step up and do their jobs, which is how Bush managed to stage his coup.
2007-07-20 05:45:20 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Congress can legally stop the war by cutting off all funding, simple as that. No money, no war.
2007-07-20 05:46:54 · answer #8 · answered by What's The Point 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I believe the PRESIDENT is the one who can declare war, but congress holds the pursestrings. Also, technically, we are not in a war.
2007-07-20 05:54:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If congress can declare war, they can also stop the war - which they should do!
2007-07-20 05:42:02 · answer #10 · answered by Mary W 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋