Byrd and Clinton are going to try and get the IWR nullified--today

[AlCzervik]

heard on CNN--no link yet.

[ElizabethDC]

1. Sounds interesting. Hope it goes through. n/t

[drm604]

2. What exactly does that mean?

And what are the implications if they succeed?

[Bitwit1234]

4. Since bush went to war in Iraq with the Iraq War Resolution

approved by congress, they say if they nullify it then he can't continue the war in Iraq. Hope it works. They have to stop this bloodthirsty stubborn monster somehow.

[drm604]

7. Interesting.

How would they do it? Would they go to court? On what basis would it be nullified, false information?

[LiberalFighter]

13. Does anyone know if the IWR was a Joint Resolution that did not need to be signed by Bush?

[drm604]

23. I think you're mistaken about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_resolution

In the United States Congress, a joint resolution is a legislative measure which requires approval by the Senate and the House and is presented to the President for his approval or disapproval, in exactly the same case as a Bill.

You may be thinking of a concurrent resolution, which does not go to the President for approval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_resolution

Concurrent resolutions do not have the force of law so I'm pretty certain the IWR was not a concurrent resolution.

[Polemicist]

27. I think there is room for discussion on this point...

I've got another post in this thread on this subject. So I'll try not to repeat myself. Where specifically, in the war powers section of the Constitution, does it require the President to concur by signature with a Congressional declaration of war?

I see a declaration of war as something totally different than a routine bill or resolution, which the Constitution does say requires Presidential concurrence. Declaring war is a specifically enumerated power given only to Congress, with no role included in the Constitution for the President. The President's sole role is outlined later and specifically, as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

If our founding fathers had intended the Executive to have veto power over declarations of war, it would have been detailed that Presidential power in the war powers section of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant the President that power. He can't veto a declaration of war or the repeal of a declaration of war.

Let's not give the most abusive President in history, more power than the Constitution requires.

[AlCzervik]

6. i guess it would revoke the resolution--no more war.

[Joe Fields]

3. This is what Bill Richardson was talking about this week.

[DURHAM D]

5. Good for Senator Clinton if that is true.

Very strategic/smart move.

[AndyA]

8. I support Clinton and Byrd in their efforts to nullify the IWR.

I hope it works.

This is a war that should have never been fought.

When I think of the waste, it just makes me sick. The money spent—and for what? That money could have been used here to secure our country, and provide health insurance for all.

Then I think of the brave troops who will never see their sons and daughters grow up.

It's sad and disturbing that it has been allowed to go on for so long.

Best wishes to Sen. Clinton and Sen. Byrd. I hope they are successful. If they are, they will be heroes. :patriot:

[LSparkle]

11. "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

IWR allowed Shrubya to go to war to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction (NOT THERE) and to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein (DEAD). MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! No more resolution needed!

[AlCzervik]

9. Byrd on the floor right now--cspan2

[babylonsister]

10. Byrd up on CSPAN2 now, talking about Iraq. nt

[Cameron27]

12. Smart move!

[AlCzervik]

14. Byrd "this resolution needs to be retired and archived"

"If the president has more he wants to do in Iraq he needs to talk to congress"

[kenny blankenship]

16. Filed in the Archives under "F"

-a for false?
-ec for feckless?
or -el for felonious?

[Adelante]

15. Oooh, please let this work nt

[AndyA]

17. One more vote for Greatest Page - someone, please? n/m

[Alamom]

18. k&r.

:)

[Alamom]

19. Senator Clinton is speaking now.

[ElizabethDC]

20. Clinton speaking on the floor now. n/t

[AndyA]

21. Clinton up now.

Go, Hillary, go!

[AndyA]

22. Clinton: "If President Bush won't accept the reality of the war in Iraq, it's

time for Congress to bring that reality to President Bush."

WOW! :thumbsup:

[goclark]

24. Go Byrd and Clinton, GO! GO! GO! nt

[MasonJar]

25. Senator Byrd is a great statesman; I remember when he stood

virtually alone speaking to an almost empty chamber about the reasons not to attack Iraq and start this disastrous war. He is a very eloquent orator with exceedingly convincing arguments. The GOPers disparaged him for his stance, inferring he was just senile. Go, Senator Byrd, you are the greatest! And go, Hillary! This is the right message and the right time!

[Polemicist]

26. Richardson mentioned this in the Dem debate...

That revoking the Authorization of Force, couldn't be vetoed by the President.

I have made several posts questioning the President's Constitutional authority to veto a declaration of War. I don't see that the Constitution grants the Executive a veto over a war vote. People who think differently point to the basic language in the Constitution of how a "bill" becomes a law, requiring a Presidential signature, thus subject to veto.

But I can't find anything that specifically says the President has to affirm by signature a vote by Congress to declare war or to undeclare war. I read that this power is absolutely and totally held by Congress. And I believe if the founding fathers intended the President's concurrence to be necessary, they would have specified such in the War powers clauses of the Constitution.

Now to the Constitutional Scholars who would respond again to this post that the President can veto any "bill" or "binding resolution". We are facing a President with an expansive view of Presidential Power. One way to counteract that abuse, is to advocate an expansive view of Congressional power. So don't give me a knee jerk answer. Tell me the precedents. When has a President vetoed a war declaration? Have all previous war declarations been submitted to the President for his signature? And even if they were, could it be possible that they were misinterpreting the Constitution and submitted said war declarations for Presidential signature when it is completely unnecessary?

[TexasLawyer]

28. The resolution that got us into Afghanistan is the one I want gone

It's much broader.