Why I support the Byrd, Clinton war deauthorization

Let me as a disclaimer first inform you that I am an leaning towards Obama with John Edwards as my close second in 2008. I felt that it's important for me to first get that out of the way because I am supporting the Byrd/Clinton war deauthorization bill bill on principle not because I support HRC's run for the POTUS.

I wrote a diary last week (on Daily Kos) called Other ways to end the Iraq occupation where I proposed (amongst other things) just such a move.

I was doing a lot of thinking on how to win a legislative battle with the Bush administration on the Iraq war. The current way the Democrats are trying to fight Bush, with the Iraq spending bill, seems to me to be in many ways wrong. It strikes me as Democrats trying to rehash how Viet Nam was ended. Well just because Viet Nam was ended by pressuring on spending, doesn't mean Iraq needs to be ended this way. Secondly although I like the Murtha Plan, it may be attacked as a little too cute. The MSM will call it "Ending the war by red taping the Bush administration". Don't get me wrong I do think Bush should be red taped, but I question if it will work. Bush simply doesn't care if he has to pay a heavy price in public opinion, he is a fanatic.

If Bush would let CHILDREN DROWN in New Orleans do you really think he won't leave soldiers in Iraq with funding drying up, just to get his way? He can as -commander in chief- , -the decider- commander guy ORDER the troops to stay there. Bush will then claim that Democrats are starving troops who are still in harms way. I am sure he will do this. But deathorizing the war that's a different animal.

I would change the Byrd Clinton bill slightly. Vote on ending the war authorization (authorization of the use of force) effective one year from the date of the vote.

By this vote of congress, the presidential authorization of the use of force will expire on May 1st 2008. Congress reserves the right to re-authorize the use of force for a period of one year, prior to the expiration date.

This vote will do the following:

1) It will allow for a clean funding bill (remember Bush wanted that, now he gets it). But tell him, a clean funding bill will only be allowed AFTER this vote is allowed (sorry Mitch McConnel that means you can't fillabuster it)

2) After this law is enacted George Bush needs to be informed that congress will only reauthorize force, after he certifies the troops are trained, ala the Murtha Bill. Since he will fail, or lie that they are trained, congress can win the media wars by pointing out he is lying.

3) It makes a HARD deadline for end of the Iraq war. Unlike cutting off funding which gives an implied deadline (troops should come home when funding runs out). It would also be a clear violation of law (war powers act more on this later)for George Bush to keep troops in the feild after Congress no longer has given him war authorization. The constitution gives congress the power to declare war and armistice.

Many people have heard the phrase "the President is comander in chief". But do they inderstand what powers the constitution give congress over the military?

ARTICLE 1
Section 8
Congress has the power to:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Now I understand that some people think that this isn't the best approach. They challenge this approach on a few common grounds that I will address.

1) The Senate will filibuster it.
This is a good thing. Sen. Reid should force endangered Republican Senators from NH,ME,MN,VA to have to stand up and vote against cloture. This will put enourmous pressure on them. It's far easier for them to make the argument, that "while troops are in harms way we need to give them financial support", then to make the argument that "we need to continue to authorize them to stay in harms way."

2) This will end up in the courts. Implied in this is that this is a bad outcome.

This is actually a much better situation then most people think. In Clinton v. City of New York the SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that the LINE ITEM VETO violated the constitution separation of powers. Remember the line item veto was a darling of the conservative movement, yet even Thomas and Scalia voted against it (although Scalia was only partial concurrence ). This is an example of how strict constructionism can be used against it's very supporters. If congress can grant a power (declaring war) it's implicit that they can take it away.

On the other hand if the court rule in Bush's favor, running against "unelected judges" who "order troops into harms way against the expressed wishes of the people elected representatives" would be a great campaign issue. In the same way that Roe jump started the conservative movement, the Florida recount helped jump start the netroots. A bad court decision helps elect more Senators and a President in 2008 who WILL END THE WAR.

1) Bring the Political fight to new ground

One problem with much of the Democratic leadership is that they try to fight political battles in the "old ways". Running political ads on Network TV instead of Cable, 16 Blue States + 1 instead of the 50 States strategy, ect. Yes cutting spending work in Viet Nam. Yes it may still work. But as we saw in the 2006 election opening multiple fronts is a good way to achieve political victories.

2) It would put the War Power Act to a supreme court test

The War Powers Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of Congress. The War Powers Act of 1973 is also referred to as the War Powers Resolution (Sec. 1).

The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).

I think it's about time to see if this law has any teeth! As I said above I think a court show down with Bush would be good.

On November 9, 1993, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation. More recently, war powers have been at issue in former Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Kosovo, Iraq, Haiti, and in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after September 11, 2001.

Every Republican who voted for these resolution, who complains about its use in this instance, should be attacked as a hypocrite.