Separation of powers question...iraq spending

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Let's say that the president got an iraq funding bill with a pull out deadline attached to it. Because the only way the President could get the money is to agree to the pull out date, he doesn't veto it and takes the money.

Now lets say the pull out date arrives. The president says, "screw you, congress," and doesn't pull out. Then what? Who is going to make the president stick to the pull out clause in the spending bill? The Supreme Court?

Now let's say the Supreme Court tells the president that what he's doing is unconstitutional, and he needs to obey the pull out clause. The president says, "Screw you, supreme court!"

Then what? Who actually reigns in the president?

[DosEquis]

They would just cut off any funding after the deadline for withdrawl was reached, forcing a return.

[thomez]

Andrew Jackson pulled a similar stunt if you are curious about how that has worked out in the past.

[RMNIXON]

I found this link helpful when researching another thread:

CRS Report to Congress


Spells out what powers both sides have and don't have.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They would just cut off any funding after the deadline for withdrawl was reached, forcing a return.

.

hard to fight a war with no money. Of course the President would then appeal to the people that Congress was putting their boys in danger's path because they wont fund the war.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

.

hard to fight a war with no money. Of course the President would then appeal to the people that Congress was putting their boys in danger's path because they wont fund the war.

I think people are intelligent enough to know that he would be the one keeping them in harms way by having them stay in Iraq without funding.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I think people are intelligent enough to know that he would be the one keeping them in harms way by having them stay in Iraq without funding.

Fighting the war vs running and leaving Iraq in a shitpile.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Fighting the war vs running and leaving Iraq in a shitpile.

The American people do not wish to continue the war.

Call it whatever you want. Withdrawal, redeployment, Scaling down, cut and run. It doesn't matter. The majority no longer buys into the war making us safer and they no longer trust Bush and his people to conduct it since they have been totally wrong about everything since day 1.

[6SpeedTA95]

1) I do not think congress would allow our men and women to sit over there unfunded to make a political point. Democrat or Republican that would be downright absurd both because it is horridly wrong and disturbing but also beause it would mean political death in the next election regardless of what the president was doing or did.

2) The supreme court would likely not get involved in this issue in any sort of timely manner simply due to the fact that the courts are notoriously slow.

3) If for some reason the President told them both to screw off congress would probably impeach the president and for good reason and stick his ass in jail.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Scrum

The American people do not wish to continue the war.

Call it whatever you want. Withdrawal, redeployment, Scaling down, cut and run. It doesn't matter. The majority no longer buys into the war making us safer and they no longer trust Bush and his people to conduct it since they have been totally wrong about everything since day 1.

There were times throughout wwII the people didn't want to continue and we did.

Just because the "majority" think something doesn't make them right. The majority thought Bush would do a better job than Kerry and my guess is you'd disagree with that.

I do agree the majority and for good reason do not like the way the post invasion aspect of this war has been run but simply because someone "wants" something doesn't make it right or true for that matter.

[smokie700]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

There were times throughout wwII the people didn't want to continue and we did.

Just because the "majority" think something doesn't make them right. The majority thought Bush would do a better job than Kerry and my guess is you'd disagree with that.

I do agree the majority and for good reason do not like the way the post invasion aspect of this war has been run but simply because someone "wants" something doesn't make it right or true for that matter.

.

I was thinking of how to put that in words. Mine was only coming this way. Just because the majority wants something doesn't make it right.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I think people are intelligent enough to know that he would be the one keeping them in harms way by having them stay in Iraq without funding.

What a great break in responcibility of the Democrat Majority Congress. They have zero blame if they hold back the funds requested? That would not be a blatant attempt to extort a policy change they can't get any other way. I would be careful not to assume what people would think, and certainly not who the servicemen and women will blame.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

2) The supreme court would likely not get involved in this issue in any sort of timely manner simply due to the fact that the courts are notoriously slow.

The courts would probably stay out because it's a political question.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

The courts would probably stay out because it's a political question.

not really. If congress doesnt pay/approve it, the President has 60 days. after that he has no authority.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

1) I do not think congress would allow our men and women to sit over there unfunded to make a political point. Democrat or Republican that would be downright absurd both because it is horridly wrong and disturbing but also beause it would mean political death in the next election regardless of what the president was doing or did.

I would expect the pullout timetable will be removed and replaced by some type of language about progress targets without being so date specific. The anti-war far left protestors will make a stink, but then when do they stop anyway?

Remember that the majority are against the poor progress of this war. Not the entire notion of the United States using military force when the situation calls for it. It is a mistake to think that a majority has now joined sides with those who view us as an Imperial Power and loath our military stregth and willingness to use it to resolve any conflict. They are not the same people or the same voters!

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

The courts would probably stay out because it's a political question.

The courts tackle political questions quite frequently it just takes a lot of time to get a case before the SC because it has to meet certain requirements and many purely political cases do not meet those criteria.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by thomez

Andrew Jackson pulled a similar stunt if you are curious about how that has worked out in the past.

It was settled by the Constitution, the laws, and the whole practice of the government that the entire executive power is vested in the President of the United States.
Andrew Jackson

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

The courts tackle political questions quite frequently it just takes a lot of time to get a case before the SC because it has to meet certain requirements and many purely political cases do not meet those criteria.

the court system is very wary of entering into foreign policy arena

[thomez]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

It was settled by the Constitution, the laws, and the whole practice of the government that the entire executive power is vested in the President of the United States.
Andrew Jackson

So when the Supreme Court didn't rule in his favor, he asked them how they intended to change his actions. Basically, nothing can be done short of impeachment, which takes time. In the short term, the President can do just about anything they want.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I do agree the majority and for good reason do not like the way the post invasion aspect of this war has been run but simply because someone "wants" something doesn't make it right or true for that matter.

No, not if you put a statement like that in a vacuum.

In this case it is right. We elect people to control things, yes. But we also elect them to submit to the will of the people in many ways. Politicians are our employees. They are not royalty or anything other than someone we pay to get things done for the country.