De-authorizing the war for a new resolution?

[ProSense]

Clinton Proposes Setting Iraq War Authorization Expiration Date

Nicholas Johnston 24 minutes ago

May 3 (Bloomberg) -- New York Senator
Hillary Clinton proposed legislation to revoke the Senate's 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq, forcing President George W. Bush to seek new approval in October for continued military operations.

The measure, announced today by Clinton and West Virginia Democratic Senator Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), would set an expiration date for the original authorization of Oct. 11, 2007, the fifth anniversary of the Iraq resolution vote.

``This fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization,'' said Clinton, who is seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. ``If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him.''

Democrats in Congress are searching for ways to force Bush to change course in Iraq after the president vetoed a $124 billion military spending bill this week that would have required U.S. troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq later this year.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me in supporting this effort to require a new authorization resolution, or to refuse to do so, for these new times and these new conditions that we and our troops are facing every single day. Madam President, I yield the floor.

link

What does that mean? Why not sponsor Reid-Feingold? Withdraw the troops.

[meldroc]

1. Does revoking the IWR require presidential approval?

I am under the impression that since the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, and the IWR is essentially a war declaration, that Congress can unilaterally revoke it, and Bush would not get a veto.

There's Congress' next step - this only requires a simple 50% majority, though it might be difficult to get that in the Senate without some serious arm twisting, especially since Senator Palpatine Lieberman would certainly oppose this.

[bullimiami]

2. i like that impression. i hope thats true.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Simple and concurrent resolutions...

don't need a Presidential signature. They simply reflect the sentiment of congress. But they don't have legal authority.

A joint resolution would, however, that needs Bush's signature, or a veto override.

[meldroc]

18. For ordinary resolutions that would be true, but.

like I stated earlier, the IWR is effectively a declaration of war, and the Constitution explicitly gives the power to declare war to Congress, not the President. So my impression is yes, Congress can unilaterally revoke the Iraq War Resolution, without Presidential approval (he can't veto it), and the revocation would be legally binding upon the President.

And the nice thing is that we need 50% of the House and 60% of the Senate (to break a GOP filibuster) in order to pass this. No Presidential veto, no 2/3 majority to override.

It does mean that a few Republicans in the Senate will have to be persuaded to vote for this, or to at least vote for cloture on a filibuster.

[DURHAM D]

4. I am trying to figure that out.

I called three of Senator Clinton's offices (two in New York and D.C.) to ask that question. Unfortunately it was after 6:00pm so no answer. I tried to find a campaign office number but didn't find one.

I am really interested in the President's role (or lack thereof) in the matter.

[ProSense]

5. Just what I thought:

"If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him," she said.

Byrd said that a new Iraq war authorization would force Bush to "be clear about what he now hopes to accomplish in Iraq."

link

Path to a new authorization, this time with Bush defining the terms. The Repubs and fence sitting Dems will have a field day.

[ProSense]

6. Clinton seeks new Iraq war vote

Clinton seeks new Iraq war vote

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer 25 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday sought to force another showdown with President Bush — and her Democratic rivals — over the Iraq war.

Sens. Clinton, D-N.Y., and Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., announced they would introduce legislation that would require the president to seek a reauthorization from Congress to extend the military effort in Iraq beyond October 11, 2007.

<...>

Her tough talk also contained a veiled jab at rival John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who has been outspoken in criticizing his own vote and that of other lawmakers in 2002 authorizing the war.

<...>

The Democrats are not the first to suggest Congress vote whether to reauthorize the war. Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, floated the possibility months ago, but it has gone nowhere.

<...>

Edwards urged Congress to pass again a bill Bush just vetoed that would have begun troop withdrawals in October.

"Congress should stand its ground and not back down to him. They should send him the same bill he just vetoed, one that supports our troops, ends the war, and brings them home," he said.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said of the Byrd-Clinton plan: "While I applaud this effort, sadly, it will not change the president's course in Iraq."

What happens when Bush gets the reauthorization? All the Repubs, Lieberman, no doubt some Dems (even if it's only four) will vote for it, and Cheney is the standby tie breaker.

[paulk]

7. are you sure all the Repubs will vote for it?

it was a Republican who initially proposed this plan...

and there are several others casting a wary eye toward the 2008 elections.

[ProSense]

8. Well, Warner would.

I just don't see the point of even discussing reauthorizing the war.

[Tellurian]

9. Hillary is talking about DE authorizing the War

Not RE Authorizing it..

The language is already in place with the original IW Authorization Bush signed onto. It gives the Democrats a chance to bring up the violations of the original agreement, which is in effect a "contractual agreement" between Congress and the Executive Branch. Bush has seriously BREECHED the contract and Hillary is preparing to deliver the PROOF!! and request a vote..

You've heard of breech of contract haven't you? Well, she's calling him on it!

Brilliant strategy!! Glad the angels whispered in her ear last night!

Hillary's official statement:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1525

[ProSense]

12. Yes, a new authorization. From your link

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me in supporting this effort to require a new authorization resolution, or to refuse to do so, for these new times and these new conditions that we and our troops are facing every single day. Madam President, I yield the floor.

[Tellurian]

14. Hillary is asking to DE Authorize the War

The Text of the Bill in it's entirety:

5/3/2007

From the Senate: Hillary Statement on Deauthorizing the War

Washington, DC -- In remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that she and Senator Robert Byrd will introduce legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq. The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

"The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him," said Senator Clinton on the Senate floor.

The following is a transcript of Senator Clinton's remarks on the Senate floor:

SENATOR CLINTON: Madam President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, to announce our intention to introduce legislation which proposes that October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

As Senator Byrd pointed out, the October 11, 2002, authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.

Earlier this week, President Bush vetoed legislation reflecting the will of the Congress and the American people that would have provided needed funding for our troops while also changing course in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home.

I believe this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have a full national debate so the people can be heard. I supported the Byrd amendment on October 10, 2002, which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue. This bill would require the president to do just that.

The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me in supporting this effort to require a new authorization resolution, or to refuse to do so, for these new times and these new conditions that we and our troops are facing every single day.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

...according to the underlined language. It may be Hillary has Bush trapped. Hoping she outsmarts the cretins holding up the end of this war...

[ProSense]

17. Here is what you underlined

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me in supporting this effort to require a new authorization resolution, or to refuse to do so, for these new times and these new conditions that we and our troops are facing every single day.

Why talk about a new authorization for "these new times and these new conditions"?


Withdraw the troops. End the friggin war.

[sandnsea]

10. It becomes a real Republican War

I don't think any Dems, except Lieberman, would vote to authorize THIS war. It puts the Democrats on record saying any authorization for WMD or Saddam is long over and we are in a completely different atmosphere. If Republicans insist on standing by Bush and staying in Iraq, then go ahead and vote for it.

Oh, and Smith could not vote for this. It would be the end of the line for him. Who are the four on JK's list - Collins, Sununu, who are the other two? Could they vote yes and get elected in 2008? This is a very good idea. We either get the war ended, or Republicans falling by the way side all over the country.

[Zhade]

11. n/m

misread

[maine_raptor]

13. De-Authorizing a War???

Not sure how that would work exactly.

In order to get a veto-proof bill you need votes, 292 in the House and 67 in the Senate. Since this will be started in the Senate, the first test will be there. Are there 67 votes? It might be close. There will be some repub defections, but probably not 17. It will depend on just what is going on in Iraq at the time. As for the House; 75 plus votes or more, are you kidding? But, once again, all depends on this War of Bush's Ego there too.

Second, just what would happen if the bill was passed, the veto overridden, and thus became the Law of the Land? Would any monies spent from that moment on be in violation of the Law? Could you then arrest and courts martial the upper echelons of the Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, et al, for engaging in "unauthorized use of force"? Or would any future funding bill, in order to make it all legal and like, have to then state that the appropriations could only be spent on getting them the hell out of there. And what would happen if Bush vetoed one of them and the veto was NOT overridden?

Ah, it's too damn early in the AM to get caught in such a Constitutional whirlpool.

[Tellurian]

15. See post #14 (eom)

[wyldwolf]

16. waste of time, Tellurian

Some are looking for a way to spin this into a bad thing. No way they'll give Clinton any credit for a worthy thing.