Are the Democrats going to cave?

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...Congress can't order the military to do something, but it can sure as hell say it won't provide any money unless the President orders the military to do it......

"Substance Over Form" is a judicial concept. A "judicial concept" is one that is not codified but rather invoked by the courts at their whim.

Your statements above argues "form over substance". I.e., no matter that "Congress CAN'T order the military to do something," they can circumvent the substance of the Law by utilizing an otherwise permissable "form". In this case the "form" being their budgeting authority.

If the courts found that the Bill violated Congressional/Presidential authority (whether it be timetables or benchmarks, and I think that remains an open question) it is unlikely the courts would uphold the use of the budgetary "tool" to circumvent the spirit, or substance, of the law.

The judicial concept of "substance over form" is used by the courts to stike down otherwise seemingly legal manouevers that they deem violates the spirit or substance of a law.

I see no way for the courts to entertain this question under the present circumstances, i.e., this a "masterbatory discussion". Congress can't take a veto to SCOTUS, the Prsident can't take the Bill to SCOTUS if he veto's, it's dead, nothing to litigate.

I believe to get this to court GWB would have to sign the Bill, then ignore the offending provision and seek refuge from SCOTUS (who would need to rule the provision unconstitutional thus unenforcable) to support his refusal to comply. I don't see this happening for any number of reasons.

Fern

edit for typos

 

[palehorse]

They REALLY need to take out the stupid sh*t - like the 15-day wait and certification required for any soldiers entering Iraq. It completely cripples 99% of our airstrikes and our much-needed ability to move Special Forces into the theater for specific missions on a moment's notice. Throw in all of the unrelated pork, and it's almost as though they intended the bill to fail from the start.

what a clusterfvck.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
They REALLY need to take out the stupid sh*t - like the 15-day wait and certification required for any soldiers entering Iraq. It completely cripples 99% of our airstrikes and our much-needed ability to move Special Forces into the theater for specific missions on a moment's notice. Throw in all of the unrelated pork, and it's almost as though they intended the bill to fail from the start.

what a clusterfvck.

Congress can not politically get away with not funding the troops after they provided funds to put them out there in the first place.

By loading a bill with unreasonable demands; they can ensure that it will not pass, yet they can say that they tried.

A pure funding bill without any "restrictions" will pass. Yet they lose their leverage or the support to try to force the issue of a withdrawl.

We saw what happened in Vietnam when politicians attempted to run a war via micromanagement.

bush & co have screwed it up by micromanaging this conflict and Congress wants to get their fingers dirty also with complete deniability.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
........Congress wants to get their fingers dirty also with complete deniability.

Yes, that's the unattainable endgame.

Although I think to be completely accurate should have said "Dem Congress". Wouldn't want to have to burden a Dem Pres in '08 with this, would we?

Fern

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Slick5150
A post with word Defeatocrats in the subject kind of eliminates any chance of a though provoking discussion within.

Sort of like the "repig" post too??

Maybe the MODs should lock EVERY thread that takes the name of either party and turns it into some childish insult.

Might help to elevate the discussion around here to something beyond what we see now.

 

[squirrel dog]

A timetable by Congress may be unconstitutional.

Thats the way I see it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: squirrel dog

A timetable by Congress may be unconstitutional.

Thats the way I see it.

I think we have established that congress DOES have the right to attach a time table to the bill. But it would have to be something along the lines of ?this authorization to fund the war ends on March 1, 2008? at which point the military can spend no more money from the bill.

What congress CAN?T do is this bench mark limited withdraw type stuff. The control the funds and can decide when the money can be spent, but I don?t think they can micromanage the war.

Interestingly I would almost guarantee that if congress override the veto and Bush just ignored the micromanage part that the courts would NOT get involved. I assume that they Supremes would say it is a political situation and not one on which they should inject themselves into, but you never know.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: squirrel dog

A timetable by Congress may be unconstitutional.

Thats the way I see it.

I think we have established that congress DOES have the right to attach a time table to the bill. But it would have to be something along the lines of ?this authorization to fund the war ends on March 1, 2008? at which point the military can spend no more money from the bill.

What congress CAN?T do is this bench mark limited withdraw type stuff. The control the funds and can decide when the money can be spent, but I don?t think they can micromanage the war.

Interestingly I would almost guarantee that if congress override the veto and Bush just ignored the micromanage part that the courts would NOT get involved. I assume that they Supremes would say it is a political situation and not one on which they should inject themselves into, but you never know.

I can guarantee the courts would definately get involved. The President would be breaking the law and would have to prove the unconsitutionality of that law to get away with it, thus involving the courts.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: squirrel dog

A timetable by Congress may be unconstitutional.

Thats the way I see it.

I think we have established that congress DOES have the right to attach a time table to the bill. But it would have to be something along the lines of ?this authorization to fund the war ends on March 1, 2008? at which point the military can spend no more money from the bill.

What congress CAN?T do is this bench mark limited withdraw type stuff. The control the funds and can decide when the money can be spent, but I don?t think they can micromanage the war.

Interestingly I would almost guarantee that if congress override the veto and Bush just ignored the micromanage part that the courts would NOT get involved. I assume that they Supremes would say it is a political situation and not one on which they should inject themselves into, but you never know.

I can guarantee the courts would definately get involved. The President would be breaking the law and would have to prove the unconsitutionality of that law to get away with it, thus involving the courts.

If the law is in unconstitutional though then the President does not have to abide by it.

It would be up to the courts to decide who was in the right or wrong though, unless they take the easy way out and call it a political battle and refuse to get involved.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: squirrel dog

A timetable by Congress may be unconstitutional.

Thats the way I see it.

I think we have established that congress DOES have the right to attach a time table to the bill. But it would have to be something along the lines of ?this authorization to fund the war ends on March 1, 2008? at which point the military can spend no more money from the bill.

What congress CAN?T do is this bench mark limited withdraw type stuff. The control the funds and can decide when the money can be spent, but I don?t think they can micromanage the war.

Interestingly I would almost guarantee that if congress override the veto and Bush just ignored the micromanage part that the courts would NOT get involved. I assume that they Supremes would say it is a political situation and not one on which they should inject themselves into, but you never know.

I can guarantee the courts would definately get involved. The President would be breaking the law and would have to prove the unconsitutionality of that law to get away with it, thus involving the courts.

If the law is in unconstitutional though then the President does not have to abide by it.

It would be up to the courts to decide who was in the right or wrong though, unless they take the easy way out and call it a political battle and refuse to get involved.

Refusing would not be an option. Maybe we are misunderstanding eachother, but if someone breaks a law they get prosecuted for it. The courts don't throw their hands in the air and say "Nope, don't wanna touch it." In the scenario we're speaking of, the withdrawal would be U.S. law and the President would be openly breaking that law. Therefore he would have to prove it unconstitutional in a court of law or face punishment.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Farang
Refusing would not be an option. Maybe we are misunderstanding eachother, but if someone breaks a law they get prosecuted for it. The courts don't throw their hands in the air and say "Nope, don't wanna touch it." In the scenario we're speaking of, the withdrawal would be U.S. law and the President would be openly breaking that law. Therefore he would have to prove it unconstitutional in a court of law or face punishment.

That was essentially my point.
If Bush just ignored the law the Democrats would have to get the courts involved at which point it would be decided if the law was or was not constitutional.

Or the Democrats could skip that and head straight for impeachment.

It would be a very risky move for Bush and I doubt he would do it. But if he had no other choice you never know.

 

[Jhhnn]

How lame. Bush won't voluntarily exit Iraq, ever. The only way to force it is to deny funding, period. And Dems don't need a veto proof majority to accomplish that- they just need to fail to appropriate. Either house of congress can accomplish that. Bush can have the money to declare victory and exit gracefully, or no money at all.

The public understands it all too well, despite the rightwing spin. Dems aren't endangering the troops- Bush is, by refusing to accept the will of the people's representatives. We may see an interim funding bill for a few months, enough to provide time for the Surge to fail spectacularly, and then a renewed insistence on the original timetable...

Ultimately, Bush will be the one to cave- his own party will insist on it, simply to have some chance at remaining competitive in the 2008 elections. If he doesn't, he'll doom repubs to a dramatically reduced minority status for the foreseeable future...

The one point that Bushfans clearly have no intention of addressing is that if the surge works as adverised, the withdrawal timetable won't be a problem. If it doesn't, there's no point in remaining, either, since it would merely be an exercise in futility...

 

[palehorse]

Jhhnn > The withholding of the funds would have a direct effect on the lives of our troops, and could even directly lead to more American deaths. The Democrats can not afford to withhold the funds... it would NEVER be forgotten, and it would cost them the next 10 elections, if not more!

Congress has no business trying to control troop movements on or off of the battlefield when we are at war - nor do they have the right to toy with our soldiers' lives. The soldiers are not Congress' pawns in their game of political chess with the President.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: squirrel dog

A timetable by Congress may be unconstitutional.

Thats the way I see it.

I think we have established that congress DOES have the right to attach a time table to the bill. But it would have to be something along the lines of ?this authorization to fund the war ends on March 1, 2008? at which point the military can spend no more money from the bill.

What congress CAN?T do is this bench mark limited withdraw type stuff. The control the funds and can decide when the money can be spent, but I don?t think they can micromanage the war.

Interestingly I would almost guarantee that if congress override the veto and Bush just ignored the micromanage part that the courts would NOT get involved. I assume that they Supremes would say it is a political situation and not one on which they should inject themselves into, but you never know.

I can guarantee the courts would definately get involved. The President would be breaking the law and would have to prove the unconsitutionality of that law to get away with it, thus involving the courts.

If the law is in unconstitutional though then the President does not have to abide by it.

It would be up to the courts to decide who was in the right or wrong though, unless they take the easy way out and call it a political battle and refuse to get involved.

Your confused again the law say bush gets money if he does X.

Bush has two chooses do X and get the money or not do X and not get the money. Congress gets to decided if bush did X or not.

Getting the law ruled unconstitutional doesn't help bush if the law is ruled illegal then bush gets no money. whether he does X or not.

 

[glenn1]

Give Bush his bill without pork and without time tables funding the troops removing that issue from the table. Then set the debate with a one item bill, GET OUT BY X. Force Bush to debate that issue separately and let the American people decide.

I agree with taking an approach like this. There's no reason to obfuscate matters by co-mingling different agendas in one bill. I'm not even sure why they're insisting on this approach.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, right, Palehorse. If Bush refuses to withdraw the troops because of lack of funding, the onus will be on him. Yeh, sure, he can blame the Iraqi aftermath on Congress, in a very lame fashion, but putting troops in harm's way w/o proper funding would be willful negligence wrt their safety, and a cavalier disregard for the Will of the People. The public didn't elect a Democratic majority in Congress to continue the occupation, but rather to end it. The sooner GWB and his supporters accept that, the better off they'll be. You're beat. Get over it. Move on.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Your confused again the law say bush gets money if he does X.

Bush has two chooses do X and get the money or not do X and not get the money. Congress gets to decided if bush did X or not.

Getting the law ruled unconstitutional doesn't help bush if the law is ruled illegal then bush gets no money. whether he does X or not.

And if congress passes a law that says you get the money if you leave office next spring does Bush have to follow the law?

Just because congress passes the law and Bush signs it does not mean its constitutional.

 

[ProfJohn]

I don?t think it is the Democrats who will cave, it will be a coalition of Democrats and Republicans that get a bill passed. Too many Democrats can afford to be seen not supporting the troops. All it takes is a few Dems and the bill passes.

It may take a while and perhaps an interim bill but eventually Bush gets the money for another year. It will take the Republicans to defect in mass before he will be forced to give up on Iraq, and we are not at that point yet.

 

[Lemon law]

The opening lines of this post gives all the answers---there are at least two schools of thought---the Biden shove it down the throat and the Reid be patient and find other issues.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, two things are almost certain to be happening. (1) GWB&co. will make no progress in Iraq---and will continue to hold on with his fingernails unless
disaster strikes and Iraq solves itself by going into total civil war. (2) The scandals regarding the President will continue to roll down the pike---and will likely turn criminal very soon.
So GWB&co. will just suffer a death by a thousand cuts. And GWB certainly does not help himself by taking a hard line take no prisoners approach to every crisis. Soon GWB will see support slip even more---and one day congress will call his bluff and grow a backbone over some issue or another. By then GWB will be sounding like a broken record and echo the Nixon line of I am not a crook---when the proof will be laid out for all to see and many more little rats are in jail or about to be.

Then the GOP in congress will happily join the dems in ending this long national nightmare.

Anyone who reads the tea leaves can't help seeing that GWB&co. are playing a losing game. The only question is---will it end fairly fast, fairly slow, or will GWB&co manage to run out the clock. Congress is in the drivers seat---and even now is giving GWB&co enough rope to hang themselves. And congress will choose the moment when they tire of cat and mouse and simply reel in the rope. Meanwhile they can and will cut and restrict GWB's options. Time wounds all heels.

The only question is what will be GWB's waterloo?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, right, Palehorse. If Bush refuses to withdraw the troops because of lack of funding, the onus will be on him. Yeh, sure, he can blame the Iraqi aftermath on Congress, in a very lame fashion, but putting troops in harm's way w/o proper funding would be willful negligence wrt their safety, and a cavalier disregard for the Will of the People. The public didn't elect a Democratic majority in Congress to continue the occupation, but rather to end it. The sooner GWB and his supporters accept that, the better off they'll be. You're beat. Get over it. Move on.

lol. we shall see.

And trust me when I say this: If Congress refuses to fund the the troops, most of the country will see Congress as the ones responsible for hurting our troops, not Bush. All he has to say is "I want to give you the gasoline, ammo, and food, but Congress doesn't want you to have it."

As a result, right or wrong, congress will be the ones left holding the purse just out of reach while our troops feel the effects in very real ways - and it will never be forgotten.

If you believe otherwise, you are living in a dreamworld son.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The opening lines of this post gives all the answers---there are at least two schools of thought---the Biden shove it down the throat and the Reid be patient and find other issues.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, two things are almost certain to be happening. (1) GWB&co. will make no progress in Iraq---and will continue to hold on with his fingernails unless
disaster strikes and Iraq solves itself by going into total civil war. (2) The scandals regarding the President will continue to roll down the pike---and will likely turn criminal very soon.
So GWB&co. will just suffer a death by a thousand cuts. And GWB certainly does not help himself by taking a hard line take no prisoners approach to every crisis. Soon GWB will see support slip even more---and one day congress will call his bluff and grow a backbone over some issue or another. By then GWB will be sounding like a broken record and echo the Nixon line of I am not a crook---when the proof will be laid out for all to see and many more little rats are in jail or about to be.

Then the GOP in congress will happily join the dems in ending this long national nightmare.

Anyone who reads the tea leaves can't help seeing that GWB&co. are playing a losing game. The only question is---will it end fairly fast, fairly slow, or will GWB&co manage to run out the clock. Congress is in the drivers seat---and even now is giving GWB&co enough rope to hang themselves. And congress will choose the moment when they tire of cat and mouse and simply reel in the rope. Meanwhile they can and will cut and restrict GWB's options. Time wounds all heels.

The only question is what will be GWB's waterloo?

lol.. now THAT is the very definition of "pipedream." Where do you get your insider news dude, People magazine?!

lol.. seriously.. good luck with all that!

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: smack Down
Your confused again the law say bush gets money if he does X.

Bush has two chooses do X and get the money or not do X and not get the money. Congress gets to decided if bush did X or not.

Getting the law ruled unconstitutional doesn't help bush if the law is ruled illegal then bush gets no money. whether he does X or not.

And if congress passes a law that says you get the money if you leave office next spring does Bush have to follow the law?

Just because congress passes the law and Bush signs it does not mean its constitutional.

The only way to get funding is to follow the conditions of the law and have the law be constitutional. If the condition is found to be illegal then the whole law is null and void and no founding will be given.

 

[galperi1]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, right, Palehorse. If Bush refuses to withdraw the troops because of lack of funding, the onus will be on him. Yeh, sure, he can blame the Iraqi aftermath on Congress, in a very lame fashion, but putting troops in harm's way w/o proper funding would be willful negligence wrt their safety, and a cavalier disregard for the Will of the People. The public didn't elect a Democratic majority in Congress to continue the occupation, but rather to end it. The sooner GWB and his supporters accept that, the better off they'll be. You're beat. Get over it. Move on.

lol. we shall see.

And trust me when I say this: If Congress refuses to fund the the troops, most of the country will see Congress as the ones responsible for hurting our troops, not Bush. All he has to say is "I want to give you the gasoline, ammo, and food, but Congress doesn't want you to have it."

As a result, right or wrong, congress will be the ones left holding the purse just out of reach while our troops feel the effects in very real ways - and it will never be forgotten.

If you believe otherwise, you are living in a dreamworld son.

Unfortunately there is a counterside to that argument. If the democrats refuse funding, and Bush keeps the troops in harms way without withdrawing them (due to lack of funding) it is he who is putting the troops in harms way.

What the democrats should do is pass a 2 month spending bill and then pass another bill requiring the troop withdrawl starting in the October-December timeframe (if certain benchmarks of the Iraqi Gov't getting their act together has not been met). They should then provide a waiver so that if the president wants to not withdraw at that point, he must explicitly excersize that right.

In this scenario it gives the president what he wants, and also provides him to ability to ignore the troop withdrawl section (at his own risk, of course).

 

[her209]

Congress can go back and get a bill that where 2/3 of Congress will support. Bush can go f*ck himself.

/debate

 

[theeedude]

It's so obvious what the Democrats are going to do. It's such a political loser for the Republicans, they want this debate every few months until the election. So they'll fund the war for a few more months, then do it all over again. Wash, rinse, repeat.