Posted by Rob on 6 March, 2007 at 10:43 pm. 1 comment.

Ahmadinejad seems to have found a new friend.
 
By Robert Farrow

Freshman Sen. James H. Webb Jr. yesterday introduced legislation to force President Bush to seek congressional authorization before using force against Iran. Democratic leaders, who indicated general support for the Virginia Democrat’s plan last week, are still deciding whether they will attach it to an upcoming spending bill. "This presidency has shot from the hip too many times for us to be able to trust it to act on its own," said Mr. Webb, a decorated Vietnam veteran who won a hotly contested Senate race last fall in part because of his opposition to the Iraq war. "We need the Congress to be involved in any decision to commence military activities absent an attack from the other side or a direct threat."
 
The backdrop of the discussion is the continuing Capitol Hill debate over the Iraq war. Democrats are still negotiating details of what legislative proposals they will offer to try to block Mr. Bush’s plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. Mr. Webb’s proposal comes in the form of an amendment to the Bush administration’s $100 billion supplemental war-spending request, which Congress will consider in the coming month. He said the measure is meant to restore a system of legislative checks on executive power that he thinks Mr. Bush has skirted since Congress approved the Iraq war in October 2002. Though Mr. Webb wants troops to come home from Iraq as soon as possible, he noted Congress’ inability to block funding U.S. forces in that conflict.
 
"Unlike the current situation in Iraq, where cutting off funds might impede or interrupt ongoing operations, this legislation denies funding that would be necessary to begin such operations against Iran in the first place," Mr. Webb said. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said on Thursday before the bill was drafted that he would be "very, very confident" that he can support Mr. Webb’s plan "in real generalities."  "The reason we have to look at Iran every day of our legislative lives is there are many out there much smarter than I am who believe that the administration is ramping up to have the same thing happen in Iran that happened in Iraq," he said, noting intelligence suggesting Iranian involvement with Iraqi insurgents.
 
Freshman Sen. James H. Webb Jr. yesterday introduced legislation to force President Bush to seek congressional authorization before using force against Iran. Democratic leaders, who indicated general support for the Virginia Democrat’s plan last week, are still deciding whether they will attach it to an upcoming spending bill.  "This presidency has shot from the hip too many times for us to be able to trust it to act on its own," said Mr. Webb, a decorated Vietnam veteran who won a hotly contested Senate race last fall in part because of his opposition to the Iraq war. "We need the Congress to be involved in any decision to commence military activities absent an attack from the other side or a direct threat."

from the Washington Times

Well, is this Webb bill Constitutional?


The Constitution’s division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers.  In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act.  Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important–in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.

The link is here.

In particular, this is the powers Congress has been assigned to by the Constitution

Congress’ Powers from Article One

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; 

Again, the President has the powers as Commander-in-Chief which includes decisions on the field of battle, where Congress has the power to declare war. So that makes the Democrats constitutionally correct in regards to Iran but unconstitutionally correct in regards to Iraq, as they are trying to manage the war on the battlefield and hampering his powers as Commander-in-Chief. However, to propose this Iran bill in such a public way at such a critical time does nothing for the security of this country. At worst, members of the Democratic Congress should be meeting with the President privately to voice their concerns, not in a public arena where our enemies are sure to take notice.
 
How do you think Iran will take this news. Well, they will be quite happy, I would imagine. They just heard the Commander -in-Chief  is having his powers limited by the leaders of his own country. Legal or not, how would this not embolden them to fund more terrorists in Iraq and build more nukes? Can you imaging the outcry if the Republicans dared to politicize WWII and interfered with Roosevelt. Wendell Willkie refused to politicize the war to win an election. The same can not be said for the Party of Treason today. The Democrats once again show they care more about securing their own power then they care about defending their own country and defending their allies.
 
And for the answer to my title question, after the Democrats victory in November, the speaker of Iraq’s al Qaeda wing said  the Democrats’ victory at U.S. Congressional elections  were a step in the right direction. So who do you think terrorists would vote for? All the Democrats  do, and all they have done since J.F.K. is encourage our enemies.
 
This is today’s Democratic Party

0 0 votes
Article Rating
1
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x