Doug
On Jan 13, 2007, at 5:38 PM, Michael Hoover wrote:
> On 1/12/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at 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