Re: Congress could force withdrawal from Iraq
Alas, I looked up the Iraq war authorization, and it specifically
says it’s just what the War Powers Resolution requires. So,
Weisberg’s all wet.
Doug
On Jan 13, 2007, at 5:38 PM, Michael Hoover wrote:
On 1/12/07, Doug Henwood dhenwood@panix.com wrote:
[I haven’t seen the bit about the War Powers Act giving Congress the right to force withdrawal anywhere else. Seems important, not, of course, that the Dems are about to do anything rash.]
Financial Times - January 11, 2007 Congress is helpless only out of choice By Jacob Weisberg
But Congress’s power to terminate a war is even clearer than its power to forbid one in the first place. A provision of the war powers resolution states specifically that the president must remove forces when Congress so orders. Faced with military deployments they disliked in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, Republican lawmakers did not hesitate to invoke this authority during the Clinton years.
Perhaps the most striking example was the military intervention in Somalia. In 1993, the House of Representatives passed an amendment saying US forces could remain there only one more year. Two subsequent defence appropriations bills cut off funding for the deployment. Congress also drew limits around how US personnel and bases could be used. <<<<<>>>>>
nothig passed by one chamber would carry the force of law…
Language in Section 5c of the WPR indicates that Congressional could use a concurrent resolution to rescind previously agreed to authorization (CRs do not require presidential signature). However, a Supreme Court ruling in the early 1980s Chadra case would suggest that such unilateral congressional action known as the “legislative veto” would not have the force of law.
In the 1983 authorization for Lebanon, Congress included language providing for use of a joint resolution (JRs require presidential signature) in the event that the Supreme Court were to rule Section 5c unconstitutional. I do not know if the current authorization dating to 2001 contains such a clause although I doubt it. But even if specific language providing for a joint resolution is not necessary, would enough Republicans vote in favor of a resolution to make it veto-proof? Michael Hoover
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk