On Iraq: The Democratic Congress Appears Prepared To Abdicate Its Constitutional Responsibilities

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 04:16:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

MYDD interviews Speaker Pelosi, who has this to say about Iraq:

Jonathan Singer: You talked about the real need to have 60 votes in the Senate and perhaps even 67 and 290 in the House to override the President and get things done. Even understanding that, given the fact that the standing of Congress has declined since Iraq has really been on the table in Congress, do you feel like something else should have been done? You could have taken different steps? Or what does it tell you about moving forward?
Nancy Pelosi: I believe that we're right on course. We had the votes to say that there are timelines and the President had to honor them. The President vetoed the bill. There isn't much more you can do after that.
But, no, I'm very proud of what we've done in the Congress. I know outside people are dissatisfied. And I am too. . . . But we're right on schedule. . . .

Right on schedule? All you can do? Um, the Founding Fathers would beg to differ. As would President Bush himself.

In Federalist 26, Hamilton wrote:

The legislature of the United States will be obliged, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not at liberty to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.

Mr. Hamilton, let me introduce you to our current Democratic Congress.

James Madison wrote:

Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws....

Heck, even George Bush knows this:

WSJ: There's a lot of discussion in Congress about putting caps on troop levels or defunding or saying you can't deploy, as commander in chief, troops in Baghdad. Do you think Congress has the constitutional authority . . .
GWB: I think they have the authority to defund, use their funding power . . .

WSJ: You do?
GWB: Oh yeah, they can say 'We won't fund.' That is a constitutional authority of Congress. . . .

"Congress, obviously, has to support the effort through the power of the purse, so they have got a role to play and we certainly recognize that," Cheney said. "But also, you cannot run a war by committee."

The current Democratic Congress appears to be ready to abdicate its Constitutional responsibilities. It is shameful.

< Iraq Update | Feingold Catches Levin In Flip-flop On Funding The Troops >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

On Iraq: The Democratic Congress Appears Prepared To Abdicate Its Constitutional Responsibilities | 7 comments (7 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Thank you for that Bush quote! (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 04:19:42 PM EST

It proves that he knows Congress can end the war.

Sen. Feingold on funding (none / 0) (#2)
by joejoejoe on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 04:54:13 PM EST

I got an email today from Sen. Feingold's Progressive Patriots fund. It's highlights some progress and continued failures in the Congressional debate. He rightly calls Levin out for his understanding of the funding elements of Feingold-Reid. From my email:

Sen. Feingold: Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) has an op-ed in today's Washington Post expressing his and Senator Jack Reed's (D-RI) support for a timetable to end the war in Iraq with a firm end date. This is an important step by both of my colleagues. Both Senators previously had been critical of using a timetable with a firm end date to end one of the biggest mistakes in the history of our country. Their change of mind on the issue of imposing a firm end date along with the declaration that they would soon be introducing legislation nearly identical to my proposal from 2005 is welcome news.
However, Senator Levin went on in his op-ed to grossly mischaracterize the legislation Majority Leader Harry Reid and I have introduced as somehow cutting or "stopping funding for the troops." That is extremely disappointing as it is well known that the Feingold-Reid bill ends funding for this war after our men and women in uniform have been safely redeployed out of Iraq.
Senator Levin and others need to stop using the Administration's talking points to mischaracterize the Feingold-Reid bill. Instead, they should join with a majority of Senate Democrats and support the Feingold-Reid plan to safely redeploy our troops by March 31, 2008 - and then end funding for the mistake in Iraq.
After all, Senator Levin and many others now in the Senate supported using Congress's 'power of the purse' before. In October of 1993, they voted for a similar effort with regard to Somalia.

Sen. Levin's op-ed is awful save for the news of his glacial progress towards timelines. It may as well have come off of George W. Bush's desk for all the good it's going to do achieving redeployment. It gives repeats the worst Republican lies as fact.

Excellent. Keep on telling 'em. (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 05:26:22 PM EST

Clever lying (none / 0) (#4)
by chemoelectric on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 05:39:35 PM EST

The Democratic leadership believe they won the election through clever lying about ending the occupation in Iraq, but this should come as no surprise, because for instance the Party long lied similarly, in its requests for money, about preventing right-wing fruitcakes from getting on the Supreme Court.

The politicians need to be convinced that they won despite their lying. Their polling numbers need to keep going down and perhaps it even has to start to look as if the 'Republicans' might take things back--but what's key is that any sign of combativeness toward Bush should bring the numbers up, and any sign of conciliation should bring the numbers down. Which is how things have seemed to be working, but it needs to be more dramatic.

I really don't think it's going to work, however; they'll fund the debacle. We need to try to maximize and pay attention to that other thread of potential control over Bush: the committee investigations.

Whaddya mean (none / 0) (#5)
by mmeo on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 08:51:08 PM EST

"ready to abdicate its Constitutional responsibilities"?

The last time Congress declared war was in 1941 !

It abdicated its Constitutional responsibilities a long time ago!!

: Re: Whaddya mean (none / 0) (#6)
by kst on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:19:12 AM EST

The last time Congress declared war was in 1941 !
Well, 1942 actually. (June 5, 1942, against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania.) But that doesn't invalidate your point.

Silver Lining (none / 0) (#7)
by robrecht on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 05:46:31 AM EST

Why are the Democrats afraid to act? Karl Rove (or his successor) will paint them once again as weak on defense, not patriotic, not supporting our troops, soft on terror ...

Who is the best hope for sane leadership out of stupidity?

I used to think a McCain-Powell presidency would finally be able to disengage from Iraq because no one would doubt their assessment ... sort of like only Nixon could go to China. But McCain lost all credibility on Iraq.

Someone said Bloomberg sees Iraq as just plain stupid from an economic point of view. Is that true? Does he have a chance?

Maybe Hillary is the best realistic chance at ending our involvement in this civil war we created? Can't say I'm a fan, but the silver lining of the GWB presidency is that there will be cause for celebrating no matter whom is elected in 2008.

Good article, BTW.