|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Immortalist
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:52 am Post subject: War Powers Act - Questioned |
 |
|
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former secretaries of state James Baker III and
Warren Christopher say the next time the president goes to war,
Congress should be required to say whether it agrees.
The co-chairmen of a bipartisan study group have proposed legislation
that would require the president to consult lawmakers before
initiating combat lasting longer than a week, except in cases of
emergencies.
In turn, Congress would have to act within 30 days, either approving
or disapproving of the action.
The plan, outlined by Baker and Christopher in an essay published
Tuesday in The New York Times, would not necessarily prevent future
debate on the so-called "war powers" issue.
Instead, it would create a new consultative process between the White
House and Congress to help prevent a potential constitutional
showdown.
Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central
issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force
President Bush to end the war.
After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to
cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. They lacked a
veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, and the White
House argued that such legislation would have violated the
Constitution by infringing upon the president's role as commander in
chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was
ample precedent.
Baker, who served as secretary of state in the first Bush
administration, and Christopher, who served under President Clinton,
were to discuss their findings at a news conference Tuesday morning.
The panel has been studying the issue for more than a year and
consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel
include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq
Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III; and
Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/08/war.powers.ap/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ed
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: Re: War Powers Act - Questioned |
|
|
On Jul 8, 9:52 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former secretaries of state James Baker III and
Warren Christopher say the next time the president goes to war,
Congress should be required to say whether it agrees.
The co-chairmen of a bipartisan study group have proposed legislation
that would require the president to consult lawmakers before
initiating combat lasting longer than a week, except in cases of
emergencies.
In turn, Congress would have to act within 30 days, either approving
or disapproving of the action.
The plan, outlined by Baker and Christopher in an essay published
Tuesday in The New York Times, would not necessarily prevent future
debate on the so-called "war powers" issue.
Instead, it would create a new consultative process between the White
House and Congress to help prevent a potential constitutional
showdown.
Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central
issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force
President Bush to end the war.
After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to
cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. They lacked a
veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, and the White
House argued that such legislation would have violated the
Constitution by infringing upon the president's role as commander in
chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was
ample precedent.
Baker, who served as secretary of state in the first Bush
administration, and Christopher, who served under President Clinton,
were to discuss their findings at a news conference Tuesday morning.
The panel has been studying the issue for more than a year and
consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel
include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq
Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III; and
Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/08/war.powers.ap/index.html
|
Actually, Democrats had the power to end the war, all they had to do
was not fund it. They could have passed ony enough appropriations for
a withdrawl and earmarked the money for that purpose. There were
probably some unpleasant side effects of that and they chickened out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Immortalist
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:43 pm Post subject: Re: War Powers Act - Questioned |
|
|
On Jul 9, 7:13 am, Ed <solon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 8, 9:52 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former secretaries of state James Baker III and
Warren Christopher say the next time the president goes to war,
Congress should be required to say whether it agrees.
The co-chairmen of a bipartisan study group have proposed legislation
that would require the president to consult lawmakers before
initiating combat lasting longer than a week, except in cases of
emergencies.
In turn, Congress would have to act within 30 days, either approving
or disapproving of the action.
The plan, outlined by Baker and Christopher in an essay published
Tuesday in The New York Times, would not necessarily prevent future
debate on the so-called "war powers" issue.
Instead, it would create a new consultative process between the White
House and Congress to help prevent a potential constitutional
showdown.
Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central
issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force
President Bush to end the war.
After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to
cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. They lacked a
veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, and the White
House argued that such legislation would have violated the
Constitution by infringing upon the president's role as commander in
chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was
ample precedent.
Baker, who served as secretary of state in the first Bush
administration, and Christopher, who served under President Clinton,
were to discuss their findings at a news conference Tuesday morning.
The panel has been studying the issue for more than a year and
consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel
include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq
Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III; and
Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/08/war.powers.ap/index.html
Actually, Democrats had the power to end the war, all they had to do
was not fund it. They could have passed ony enough appropriations for
a withdrawl and earmarked the money for that purpose. There were
probably some unpleasant side effects of that and they chickened out.
|
Can you describe what in your opinion would be the side effects and
how they would effect the political environment generally? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Reddragonf66
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject: Re: War Powers Act - Questioned |
|
|
On 12 jul, 13:59, ZerkonX <Z...@X.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 07:13:22 -0700, Ed wrote:
Actually, Democrats had the power to end the war,
Actually, there is no declaration of war.
The federal government insists it is at war yet no enemy state is named.
The closest thing that is named is terrorism or terrorist which can not
be distinguished from crime and criminals other than through the constant
repetition of pure political lingo-isms
.
|
think some scum are making war against there one |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: War Powers Act - Questioned |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 07:13:22 -0700, Ed wrote:
| Quote: |
Actually, Democrats had the power to end the war,
|
Actually, there is no declaration of war.
The federal government insists it is at war yet no enemy state is named.
The closest thing that is named is terrorism or terrorist which can not
be distinguished from crime and criminals other than through the constant
repetition of pure political lingo-isms
.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ed
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: Re: War Powers Act - Questioned |
|
|
On Jul 9, 7:43 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 9, 7:13 am, Ed <solon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Jul 8, 9:52 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former secretaries of state James Baker III and
Warren Christopher say the next time the president goes to war,
Congress should be required to say whether it agrees.
The co-chairmen of a bipartisan study group have proposed legislation
that would require the president to consult lawmakers before
initiating combat lasting longer than a week, except in cases of
emergencies.
In turn, Congress would have to act within 30 days, either approving
or disapproving of the action.
The plan, outlined by Baker and Christopher in an essay published
Tuesday in The New York Times, would not necessarily prevent future
debate on the so-called "war powers" issue.
Instead, it would create a new consultative process between the White
House and Congress to help prevent a potential constitutional
showdown.
Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central
issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force
President Bush to end the war.
After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to
cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. They lacked a
veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, and the White
House argued that such legislation would have violated the
Constitution by infringing upon the president's role as commander in
chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was
ample precedent.
Baker, who served as secretary of state in the first Bush
administration, and Christopher, who served under President Clinton,
were to discuss their findings at a news conference Tuesday morning.
The panel has been studying the issue for more than a year and
consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel
include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq
Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III; and
Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/08/war.powers.ap/index.html
Actually, Democrats had the power to end the war, all they had to do
was not fund it. They could have passed ony enough appropriations for
a withdrawl and earmarked the money for that purpose. There were
probably some unpleasant side effects of that and they chickened out.
Can you describe what in your opinion would be the side effects and
how they would effect the political environment generally?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
I'm not sure. The administration would do all it could to obviate the
congress' act and drain money from other military areas to keep the
troops there, then they would demand money for those impoverished
areas. There would be a major debate about the powers of the
presidency vs the powers of congress. The Senate would weigh in,
probably on the side of the administration; I can't predict exactly
what they would do. The democrats probably flinched partly because
they did not want to limit a future Democrat president, which the
ensuing brouhaha probably would have done.
For myself, I think a major national debate about the balance of
powers would be healthy. Without something like congress witholding
funds I don't think it will happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
