Procedure to force pull-out from Iraq?
I am curious: In the US Constitution, is there a legal procedure available to Congress to force Bush to put an end to the occupation of Iraq, or is he on his own? Is that the kind of thing impeachment allows to do? Thx.
Congress has the "Power of the Purse".
At any given time, they can cut funding and *in theory* a pullout would have to occur.
August 18th, 2005
I guess they can just surrender...
August 18th, 2005
Yep - they hold the purse strings, but have refused to use it over and over and over again.
Congress isn't a separate branch of government anymore. They are just the presidents biatches.
The repubs control both houses of congress. I predict zero chance of cutting the budget for the war.
At one time the congress had the power to make war, which has since been ceded to the executive.
And you can only imagine the media circus that would surround the congress "starving the troops".
So no, its not gonna happen.
There are some who say that Nixon only pulled out of Viet-Nam because the Congress finally decided not to fund it anymore.
So yes, that is the tried and true way for one branch of the Government to 'force' another branch to stop a war.
However, that assumes there is some difference of opinion between the two branches. Currently, there is no difference of opinion -- as far as I can tell, the people in power in the Executive branch and Legislative branch think the war is necessary, and is making acceptable progress for the price being paid in dollars and human lives.
Note Viet-Nam went on from '63 to '74 (I'm not sure about the start date). Thus it takes 10 years of discontent before our legislators will do something about it.
So Congress doesn't have the right to force troops to leave? All they can do is simply refuse to finance the war, letting Bush draw the conclusion?
> So Congress doesn't have the right to force troops to leave?
Isn't declaring war Congress' right?
I dont think we ever declared war against Iraq? someone correct me if Im wrong.
technically I have an idea we are just popping in for a cuppa...
Yes, we stopped declaring war after WW-II. It got too hard to get the other guy to do something completely stupid, like bombing Pearl Harbor with planes with the Japanese symbol on them.
Since then, we've only done "Police Actions" -- like Korea and Viet-Nam and Ruanda and Panama and the Balkans and Haiti. Did we declare war on Afghanistan? I don't think so. Even when we went in to liberate Kuwait, I don't know that we declared war -- though it WAS called the "Gulf War".
American isn't at war with these countries, these countries are at war with themselves. America just steps in with overwhelming force to "put the situation right" -- or try to, anyway. How we define "right" usually has more to do with fighting communism, terrorism, and getting American access to resources than anything else.
So, since Congress never declared war, they can't declare peace and pull out, either. So, the best they can do is cut funding when we get in a morass.
Doesn't congress still have to at least authorize the use of force? The problem, as I see it, is congress doing that with no sunset provisions and no limitations. That's what happened with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and it seems even worse in the resolution giving Bush the go-ahead on Iraq.
Also, it bothers me that Bush sold that to congress and the people as "We need this resolution so that Iraq will no we mean business, and then we can get a peaceful resolution," but then Bush turned around and said, "Oh, no, I can't wait for a peaceful resolution. By the way, thanks for authorizing the use of force."