Asherman wrote:Actually Prados, the Constitution does make the President the Commander-in-Chief of the US military, and as CNC, he and not the Congress determines how that military is used. The Congress has the power of the purse, but can not use that power to dictate military policy. They can refuse to fund the military budget proposed by the President and his military advisers, but they can't usurp the Executive's responsibility.
Some simple questions that will prove your supposition is incorrect.
Can the congress designate funds for specific military programs or functions? The correct answer is yes. Over 90% of the military budget is designated for specific functions by Congress.
Can the congress designate funds for specific military operations? The correct answer is yes. They designated funds for the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Can the congress cease to fund specific military programs? Yes.
Can the congress put a timeline on the funding for military programs? of course.
Can the congress close bases by stopping funding? yes.
Can the congress put a timeline on closing bases? Yes.
Does the congress have to accept the budget proposed by the President? No.
Is the House the only place that appropriations can originate? Yes.
Congress dictates military policy all the time with funding that is restricted to certain areas or certain time frames.
Quote:
In this case, the Congress has passed legislation that in its conditional nature imposes its will on the President un-Constitutionally.
You have failed to show where this is unconstitutional. Congress can put whatever restrictions they want to on funding. They could say money will only go to a program on Tuesdays or only go to persons wearing blue underwear. There is no constitutional requirement that they fund anything and everything without restrictions.
Quote:
There is no question, whatsoever, that this bit of grandstanding will not make it through the Senate where more responsible representatives will kill it. In the unlikely event that such a bill arrived on the President's desk it will be vetoed. The Bill would then go back to Congress, and would not be over-ridden because the Democrats don't have enough votes for that. In the meantime, while the Democratic Party is busy obstructing the budget process, the military will find it ever more difficult to operate. That in turn probably would mean greater casualties lists, and an increase in pressure from those who want to kill Iraqi democratic government.
Our process requires compromise. If the President won't compromise then there will be no funding. Most intelligent people will blame the side that is not compromising which in this case is obviously the President.
Quote:
The President's speech urging the Democrats to be non-obstructive and send a clean bill forward was a timely effort to head off negative consequences by folks who hope to discredit the administration. The House passed this bill knowing full well that it would be vetoed, and that the military would be short funded while in the midst of combat operations.
It might well be and it is his right to do that. This thread however is about his use of uniformed military personnel as a political prop. The democrats in congress could call a news conference and fill the stage with injured vets in uniform and it would be the same thing, political props used as an attempt to create sympathy for their position.
Ash, would you be satisfied if the Congress said. We will fund 150,000 troops this month, 100,000 in 6 months, 50,000 in 12 months and only 10,000 advisors after that? Congress is obviously using just funding which we know they can do. They are not restricted to funding or not funding. They get to set the limits on the funding.
