The Iraq War Withdrawal Veto
by tdaxp ~ May 1st, 2007
I’m repeating things in this post, but they are important to say.
I disagree with how President Bush is running the Iraq War. Indeed, I disagree with nearly every major decision that George Bush has made since 2004. Disbanding the Iraqi Army was perhaps the last great American decision in Iraq (though the “Let freedom Reign” transfer of sovereignty comes close).
That said, President Bush and not Nancy Pelosi is the Commander in Chief of the Army. He, and not Nancy, is the Commander in Chief of the Navy. He, and not Nancy, is the Commander in Chief of the Militia. He, and not Nancy, is the Head of State. He, and not Nancy, is the Head of Government.
Whatever the powers of the Congress to begin war, the President alone has the power to end it.
While Bush should end the American occupation, and instead support reliably anti-Qaedist/anti-Baathist elements with money, guns, and air cover, that is Bush’s decision to make. Not Pelosi’s.
It’s too bad that Bush is not wiser in fighting the Iraq War. But he is completely right to veto Nancy Pelosi’s extra-constitutional pan for failure.
The New York Times uses top 1% of income, not wealth. From the legend:...
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
If instead of setting a deadline, what if the bill were to simply cut off funding? South Dakota v. Dole indicates this could be a constitutional solution. Congress wouldn't mandate compulsory troop movements or withdrawals, but instead would just “pressure” them to happen.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
At present, I don't want to wade in too deeply to the separation-of-powers argument, although I disagree with some things you have said.
E.g., viewing the Speaker as equivalent to the president may be an error in your argument. That is, “we shouldn't have war policy decided by the Speaker” seems ridiculous, given the fact that so many others in both houses of Congress also worked to make the resolution happen.
Plus, Congress theoretically has another way of ending any war besides cutting off funding. They could impeach the president and the V.P., and elevate the Speaker to the position of President, from which she (or he as the case might be) could end it. Of course, that would be a very unlikely scenario.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Each side is just playing the cards they have. It's negotiation.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Adam,
The executive branch is not a mere corporate person, semi-sovereign state, or dependent nation — it is a branch of government that is co-equal to Congress.
If the Iraq War Resolution means anything constitutionally — if it amounts to a declaration of war — then only the President can end it. The Constitution gives the Congress the power to make war, but only the President (with the advice and consent of the Senate) the ability to end it. The Constitution purposefully makes it hard to start hostilities, by requiring consent of Congress. It also makes it hard to end them, by making the cessation of hostility's the President's decision.
In his veto speech, Bush said that he would take money from elsewhere in the budget if Congress cuts off war funds. Good. We should not be in this war as we are in, but we shouldn't have war policy decided by the Speaker, either.
Steve,
Clearly it's negotiation. Nearly all actions, violent and nonviolent, are negotiations of deeds.
In the same way, the President sending in the army to prevent a quorum would be a negotiation. It would also be mindblowingly irresponsible.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
It makes as much sense to say “Pelosi” or “Speaker of the House” when mentioning the will of the House of Representatives as it does to say “Blair” or “Prime Minister” when mentioning the House of Commons. Thus, it is not ridiculous to say “we shouldn't have war policy decided by the Speaker” at all.
The Speaker of the House is one of the offices in the United States that has some of the powers traditionally reserved for Prime Ministers (the others being President, Vice President, Senate Majority Leader, and Chief of Staff).
You're right on impeachment. It's the closest thing that we have to a vote of no confidence in the President in our system. It's hard to pull off on purpose.
It's politically easier to wait for the next Presidentail election — which, of course, is exactly the point.