Can Congress stop funding the executive branch? /nt

[still_one]

[AndyA]

1. No, because the Republicons are in charge of Congress, and they would never

do that to their leader.

It would be so nice if the Democrats had control of Congress, then they could do what they're supposed to do and oversee the Executive Branch...

:sarcasm:

[sabbat hunter]

3. we can oversee the exec branch

without cuttign off funding. what happens if we gain control of the WH but lose congress? the republicans could then cut off funding again to the executive branch in revenge.

we do not want to do things to be petty.

[still_one]

8. It isn't petty. I am not even referring to the Iraq vote, that's minor compared what's been done

Refusing to testify before Congress, claiming executive priviledge on requested documents

In effect the executive branch has invalidated Congress

Either they cut off funding, Impeach, what other options are there?

If they do nothing what precident does that provide

[tritsofme]

2. Yes. This happened at a low level during the government shutdown in 1995

The president could also veto congressional funding, but that could be over-ridden.

[sabbat hunter]

4. low level shutdown

is different than de-funding the executive branch.

in 1995 low level employees were furloughed until the budget was settled.

defunding the exec branch is far different.

[tritsofme]

6. Theoretically this could happen.

I just see no situation where it would ever arise.

[still_one]

11. I ask this because the executive branch has effectively invalidated Congress /nt

[mmonk]

5. Congress has the sole power of the purse

and the sole power in determining war so according to the constitution, it could end all this if it wanted to assert its power.

[still_one]

9. They are being invalidated by the executive branch. Perhaps Congress should do something? /nt

[mmonk]

12. If they can't agree with deauthorizing the war,

then they need not send spending bills through the system. Starve them thus forcing withdrawal. No more appropriations.

[still_one]

13. Does that require a 2/3 majority? /nt

[mmonk]

14. No

No appropriations bill requires none to be sent Thus, no 2/3rds requirement to override a veto. Reid has the right idea. Table it. Kucinich has the right idea (don't have one sent out of the House). Simple majority is all that is required to not send any through.

[tritsofme]

15. Think about what exactly that means though.

Who are you "starving" by doing this?

Its the actual troops in the field. All talk like this does is validate RW propaganda that Democrats want to leave soldiers in the field stranded.

Some sort of appropriation needs to go throught that mandates redeployment.

[frogcycle]

16. if congress were an "it" we would not be having this discussion

all the ranting and raving about the dems being weak and spineless overlooks the fact that the pugs do, in fact, still control the senate when it comes to DOING anything. They effectively have a "veto' that cannot be overridden. What the dems CAN do is the card that it looks like Reid is now playing, and that is NOT do something. No amount of bitching and moaning by the pres and the 49 rep senators can MAKE them pass anything. To their credit, they did not come in and shut the place down on day 1. They gave it a go to "play nice" and attempt to "compromise." While we all knew that was futile, they have given the bastards sufficient rope to hang themselves.

One can debate whether they waited too long to play the only card they ever had, but saying they were ineffective in trying to get anything passed is just wrong.

[Igel]

7. Sure.

But then it's defunding the EPA, FDA, FBI, the military, and all sorts of other things.

If they do it over a standoff, they might win. I know Clinton came out ahead after his standoff with Congress; I think the dem Congress came out ahead with the standoff with Reagan (but don't quote me on that one). But both were standoffs.

If a Democratic Congress decides on mostly party lines to fully defund the executive, you can count on having no Democratic Party in 2009.

[still_one]

10. Is the EPA, FDA, FBI, etc. under the executive branch? /nt

[frogcycle]

17. yes, the entire government structure is under the executive, except

for the Supreme Court and Congress.

[still_one]

18. Thanks for the info. Problem is the executive branch is trying to make Congress

under its authority, and what can be done?

[frogcycle]

19. IMPEACHMENT

in every administration from G Washigton on, there has been contentiousness between the branches. It was designed into the Constitution. No one branch is supposed to dominate. This is intentional, to avoid the tyranny that existed under the "rule by divine right" of the British royalty.

The power grab by this administration is vastly more ambitious - and successful, than in prior admins. With reasonable people, negotiation is possible, sometimes requiring pretty tough negotiations. In this case, that is impossible. bush, cheney, and their inner circle are all classic bullies. They demand utter obedience. they have no place in our government and must be expunged.

[still_one]

20. Well, I have written to Pelosi, and my Congress person and Senators

to pursue impeachment, but it sure seems to fall on empty ears