House passes war appropriations bill - Chimpy throws a hissy fit

Also, one other thing is that spending/reconcilliation bills can't be fillabustered.

But yes, I agree totally. Very big constitutional issues with this type of legislation because it directly clashes with the commander in chief role of the president. Categorical Grants to the states are purely voluntary measures. States have the option of rejecting the funding and can preserve their autonomy. (although that's functionally difficult considering how reliant states are on federal funding) This type of legislation, on the other hand, seeks to directly condition a specifically mandated constitutional ability of the president. And it does so without any recourse for the president. Congress is the only source of funding for the troops, meaning he has no recourse, unlike the states that can fund themselves if they opt out of federal funds.

 

The President doesn't have a right to funding for the war just like the states don't have a right to highway funding (or whatever). Nothing in the Constitution says that Congress can't place conditions on funding.

 

Correct, so Congress should cut off funding entirely in that case. My problem is the conditioning of money and dictating battlefield strategy by using money as a tool. Battlefield strategy is the sole domain of the president, not Congress.

I have no problem with Congress immediately denying all funds, what I don't like is that Congress is dictating how the troops should be used by creating timetables that should be done by the commander in chief.

 

Congress isn't dictating strategy. If the President doesn't like the conditions, s/he can end the war.

 

Umm, if you have to change your military strategy due to the bill, then yes, Congress is dictating strategy.

 

I'm amazed people think its OK that Congress picks an arbitrary deadline to withdraw troops. No consideration of military goals, needs, targets. No consideration of security issues or consequences. Nothing. Just pick a date close to the election to get maximum visibility. Unless you believe October 2008 just happens to be the proper time to leave.

 

America wants a lot of things - lower taxes, a perfect environment, no deficit, lots of health care, lots of government jobs in their own district, etc. Part of leadership is figuring out what's reasonable and what's best.

But beyond that, the American people don't want us out October 2008. They want us out ASAP. If Congress were to simply try to force us out now, it would at least make sense (though I'd disagree with it). My beef here is the artificial election-induced deadline. It's clearly not for any purpose other than politics, and playing politics with the military and national security issues is what I despise in the GOP.

 

Umm, sorry but you're wrong. The President will inevitably have to change his military strategy due to any bill that has to do with the military. If Congress declares war, the President changes military strategy. If Congress ends a war, the military strategy is changed.

Again, the President still chooses what the Army does with the resources given him by Congress. If he doesn't like the conditions, either negotiate with Congress to change them before the bill is passed or end the war.

 

^ The Constitutional references were cited earlier in the thread and it is pretty clear that the President controls military strategy. Congress can declare a war and declare a war over but short of that the Founders didn't intend for Congress to be co-Commanders in Chief. For instance if Congress didn't approve of D-Day they couldn't have stepped in and said we aren't funding it since we think its bad strategy and instead we should invade from Norway.

Even with these bills when they started debating them there was a lot of criticism expressed towards the surge yet these bills don't stop it because that would clearly be crossing the line into dictating battlefield strategy. What Congress has done though is to move it out farther. I would contend that is still an interference into dictating military tactics.

If Congress feels that the war should be ended in October of 2008 the Constitutional solution IMO would be to come back in October of 2008 and cut off funding rather than placing conditions determinant on what does or doesn't happen on the battlefield.

 

You're creating a distinction that simply isn't in the constitution. What's the difference, Constitutionally, between defunding a war completely (thus ending it) and conditionally funding the war?

 

Pork that the President deems necessary is still Pork. The levee funding would pass on its own. Paying the spinach farmers wouldn't and was simply to buy Feinstein's vote. The American people voted for Congress to clean up their act. So far, it's only gotten worse.

 

There is a huge difference as placing conditions on the funding is dictating battlefield tactical decisions.

This was cited earlier in the thread but will cite it again:

Federalist #69 (Hamilton):

The President is to be the "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States.

Hamiliton is clearly stating that when authorized the President has overall command of the military. As such he is the one who determines how the war is fought. Congress can disagree but they don't command the military. Conditional funding though is a backdoor way for them to exert command which would interfere with the President's constitutional purview.

 

Not according to polls.

 

I think you're too much in the weeds on this issue SC. The alternative you propose would end up making things a lot worse I suspect.

You can't hit a switch and have the war over. The logisitical, military, and political issues won't go away the second the non-funding bill passes. The current approach seems reasonable to me... It's enough time to see if there's any hope left, has enough flexibility built in to change the timelines if needed, and still provides enough time for the CINC (or his Czar ) to make the tactical decisions and logistical plans to get us out by a certain time.

 

Again, I think you're bogged down a little here. The current approach is no different from what was done a number of times before, including Somalia and Vietnam. And I don't think anything in the current bill is close to being unconstitutional.

Just for grins, here's one from Section 8-Powers of Congress...

Can you really make the argument that the Iraq War is good for the common defense, much less the general welfare of the United States?