God help us!

[Seabiscuit]

Woe unto the Democrats:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/democrats-confident-victory-war-spending-bill/story.aspx?guid=%7B4F72C9E6-2F70-435E-AF75-A2FD18C9F022%7D

At least another 18 months of senseless carnage. Thanks a bunch, all of you House Dems who created this monstrous legislation. It's probably unconstitutional, impinging on the powers of the commander in chief.

This is NOT why we elected so many of you last November. We elected you to STOP THIS WAR NOW!

That means exercise your war powers properly:

1. Rescind the Iraq War Resolution, declaring the President has no further authority to conduct this war, and *must* remove the troops within a very short time to be set (no more than a month).

2. Pass legislation cutting off all funding for the Iraq War except for withdrawal.

Any tinkering with how the war is conducted is unconstituional.

What is wrong with Nancy Pelosi, et. al.??? Don't they even understand the limits of their Constitutional powers and duties?

[Sparkly]

1. Don't you understand the limits of what will/won't pass? nt

[Seabiscuit]

2. Yes, I do. Your crystal ball is no clearer than mine.

The House would have the votes with strong anti-war leadership, which right now we are sorely lacking thanks to Nancy Pelosi.

The bill that just passed is pro-war and pro-Bush. It's nauseating in the extreme.

[Sparkly]

4. It's not about a crystal ball.

Pelosi is taking strong leadership on this. SHE knows who's willing to vote for what -- down to the person. They calculate constantly. By the time of today's vote, they were pretty certain they'd have fewer than 15 Democrats opposed, allowing the bill to pass.

What do YOU think she should do that'd be stronger "anti-war leadership?"

[whoneedstickets]

6. What these dreamers don't have...

...is any sense of political strategy or any vision beyond this symbolic show of hands. Their myopia could kill the prospects of a democratic WH in 08. Imagine if the Thugs took back the House and Senate and McCain or Gulliani won the WH?

Its limited strategic sensibility like this that allows Rove and company to run circles around our party.

[Seabiscuit]

8. Oh, brother!

Talk about *mindless*, facetious claptrap. I thought the other poster was outrageous.

[Auntie Bush]

25. I'd like to see your idea get passed? It NEVER would! So why would

you criticize Nancy when she got the best deal possible. This is a Democracy...you know? We only have a slim majority and must give in sometimes to get bills passed. By the way...do you think your way (even if passed) would be signed by the president? For God sakes...he won't even sign this one. Time to go home an take an extra dose of your reality pills. Really, I can't believe you. You must just like to bitch! :spank: :banghead:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

10. Wow, where'd that come from?

:wow:

[Seabiscuit]

15. From your facetious, condescending attitude. That's where.

[Sparkly]

19. Huh.

:shrug:

[Auntie Bush]

29. Some people are just unrealistic. They know not what they say.

[whoneedstickets]

11. The unconstitutional canard..

The SC will never rule on the separation of powers issue with regard to war funding or foreign policy. Don't know where you made up your information.

[Seabiscuit]

13. And you're some kind of constitutional scholar? NOT.

I, on the other hand am a licensed attorney who has passed rigorous courses on constitutional law.

So don't presume to lecture me!

[whoneedstickets]

17. OOOOH, let's compare credentials!!!

I have a PH.D and teach US Foreign Policy.

How bout we compare publications? Post your vitea

[Seabiscuit]

21. A Ph.D in foreign policy doesn't qualify you re: constitutional law.

My law degree is a Juris Doctor. A doctorate equivalent to a Ph.D academically, but far more practical in the real world.

I would have thought a Ph.D could at least spell. The word "about" is not spelled "bout". And "curriculum vitae" is not spelled "vitea".

[whoneedstickets]

23. LOL

Know it all lawyers. Have you ever published anything in a peer reviewed journal?

Your resort to argument by authority and credentialing suggests you probably don't have the horsepower to generate much in the way of quality pubs.

[Seabiscuit]

24. Peer reviewed journals are for eggheads.

I practice my profession in court. My profession doesn't depend on a "publish or perish" protocol.

[whoneedstickets]

26. What kind of law do you 'practice'?

So you're part of the USSC bar? You argue constitutional cases regarding separation of powers from your office in San Diego? I doubt that! But the world needs tax attorneys too.

[Seabiscuit]

31. Yes, I am a member of the USSC bar, as a matter of fact.

All your postings are irrelevant to the fact that since you have never even studied constitutional law from a law professor as a law student, you are simply and completely unqualified to lecture anyone on the subject. Period.

[Sparkly]

32. Well, if the subject is condescending attitudes...

"All you care about is imagining you're some kind of high and mighty know-it-all looking down on others like me with your facetious claptrap."

Project much?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

39. Lecturing?

And that's "Ms. Hypocrite" if you must... :rofl:

[whoneedstickets]

33. What arrogance!!

LOL, surely the law is so difficult only trained lawyers can understand it. My sides hurt from laughing at your pomposity. Surely one law school con law course trumps 5 years of graduate research on US FP, not to mention several pubs and a book manuscript. There's no way I could figure out the courts role in US FP struggles.

So prey tell, when was the last time the court ruled on a separation of powers case related to a foreign policy issue. You should know this Mr. bigshot!

[Seabiscuit]

35. I could research it, but why waste any more time dealing with pompous,

arrogant blowhards?

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. If memory serves

not in the recent past, if ever....

But what would I know, I only hold a Masters in History

;-)

So lets wait for the Juris Doctor to give us the correct answer... or I might use the google

[whoneedstickets]

44. BINGO!

The court has traditionally refrained from entering inter-branch struggles regarding National Security issues. The court had several opportunities to rule on war powers issues during the Vietnam war and declined each time.


THE USSC wants no part in deciding these issues. Unless you foolishly buy the Republican talking point regarding micro-management there is no reason to think that congress, through the appropriation process, can't limit the duration and even deployment of forces. There was no challenge to the Congressional limit against ground forces in Kosovo, the administration didn't even raise the question.

The founders recognized that a collective body could not make day-to-day decisions about the conduct of an armed conflict. So, they vested this power in the executive. Congress can't do tactics, but on broader issue of temporal, geographical or strategic limitations to war, the Congress wields all the power and the purse! Even the President's 'war powers' arise from US Law--not the constitution--and could conceivable be revoked.

Our lawyer friend must have been sleeping through that Con law class (or perhaps they spent a week on this topic before shifting to the richer cases surrounding the commerce clause).

[Pyrzqxgl]

48. I dropped out of college to be a Civil Rights worker in McComb Ms

back in the mid 60's (I marched some against the Viet Nam war and in Delano with The Farm Workers Union too) and never really got back to
finish up any kind of degree. I have owned my own business for 40 years and I've been involved with politics since high school (by the way I
think I heard more intelligent exchanges of pissing rights when I was in high school). We're supposed to be discussing the bill, not how qualified
we all are. Lighten' up folks.

[whoneedstickets]

41. Have you ever argued a case?

Did it have separation of powers implications?

[theoldman]

3. We have gone down this road before.

The Democrats do not have a majority in the Senate. It takes a majority in both the House and the Senate to overcome a presidential veto.

[LiberalFighter]

14. Your wrong it doesn't take a majority to override a veto

It requires a 2/3 to override in both chambers.

[Seabiscuit]

20. Correct. n/t

[Dangerman]

5. The Democrats, in the case of the war...

Like the Repugs, are not to be trusted.

[Seabiscuit]

9. Finally! Someone on DU gets the point!

:applause:

[Rusty MacHenry]

30. Yeah right

I trust the Dems then the rethugs cause if it was them in control the spending that passed would had no stipulations for a withdrwal, just a clean bill.

You can bitch all you want, I support this bill, it's a good bill.

Dems not to be trusted, what planet are you from?

[LSK]

12. so you want Walter Reed to have no money?????

[Seabiscuit]

16. Talk about a steaming pile of horse manure.

The subject is Iraq, not Walter Reed.

[LSK]

18. then I guess Murtha is a flat out liar

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LSK]

27. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=482786&mesg_id=482988

Did I make that up????

Im sorry if the TRUTH does not win me points.

[Seabiscuit]

34. More horse manure.

Troop health care can be inserted in any spending bill, including a bill which cuts off funds for the Iraq War. What's unconscionable about the bill that just passed is it give Bush another blank check to continue this war indefitinetly.

Apples and Oranges.

Health care for troops = apples. Can be inserted in any bill.

Oranges - cut off funds for the war. Can include health care for troops.

Get it yet?

I can't believe I have to bend over backwards for some people just to spell out common sense for them.

[Sparkly]

36. Fruit Salad

Apples + Oranges NOT PASSED = empty bowl.

[LiberalFighter]

28. I think I know the answer...

House and Senate Resolutions are not signed by the President. Right?

Therefore, the Iraq War Resolution was not signed by Bush.

[Seabiscuit]

40. DU has really sunk to new depths.

No one seems able to post anything critical of Nancy Pelosi or in favor of ending this war ASAP without a bunch of nasty flamers piling on.

Utterly appalling.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Play chess much

If bush vetoes the bill, the troops are effectively defended

If bush signs it, then there are actual standards to be met (and a 180 time table gets activated immediately)

By the way, how long did it take to defend Nam from first bill to finally a successful bill?

Ohh ahh, that Masters in History helps

1970 saw the first attempt, with final defending in 1973

Now here is another question

How good were the numbers in the House compared to today? Far better

How good where they regarding the Senate?

Definitely much better

Go ahead and read a history of that defending effort, it may give you a damn clue of what is going on

Oh and one last thing, is this bill perfect? No... but in politics you have to go for COMPROMISE, since perfection is far from reality

[whoneedstickets]

43. Great Post!

Politics is about strategic position, especially in institutional environments, and gaining public support. This bill is a very good strategic move.

[LSK]

45. but its more fun to PRETEND there is a filibuster proof Senate and a Dem President

:sarcasm:

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. There's not?

:sarcasm:

[Sparkly]

47. Not only that...

Speaker Pelosi has a crystal ball AND a magic wand, and she refuses to use either of them.

:sarcasm: