Why is congress asking the president what powers they have?

You know what your powers are, they're in the constitution. If you're not sure what your powers are, you excercise them anyway, and let the Supreme Court sort it out.

We can expect Arlen Specter to do his usual cover-up, running interference, soft handling for Bush. Can we also expect Leahy to get bumped over and go along with the interference?

Americans still do not grasp the enormity of the Republican machine that has led us into the military, financial mess we see today, both abroad and at home.

And if we have to rely on the mainstream media for accuracy, we're out of luck.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

they aren't asking the President, they are asking for a legal opinion from the Justice Department, through the Attorney General. The Justice Department is not simply for the use of the President.l

Brilliant! I hope the police chief here in Des Moines considers writing to the local criminals, asking them what powers he has to stop them.

And the next time my children act up, I will send them an e-mail, requesting they provide a written response detailing what parental authority they recognize me as having.

All of this begs one question: Who cut off all these Congressmen's balls?

The WH already circumvented Congress' power of the purse (Article I, Section 9 - "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law..."), by taking $700,000 allocated to the Afghanistan war, and using it to begin planning for Iraq. I have long pointed out this is manifestly unconstitutional, and pretty much everyone yawns. I mean, it isn't even a technicality; Congress holds sole power of the purse for very good reasons, and no president can unilaterally decide to spend such monies otherwise (Article 2, Section 3, Clause 4 - ["the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"], even on something which can be tangentially related back to the original purpose ("Afghanistan, Iraq - it's all national defense!").

If it were any other way, why would congressmen spend so much time trying to get earmarks in order to spend money in very specific ways? Iran-Contra never would have been investigated if it weren't for this principle.

In any case, this 'trivial' violation of the Constitution could loom much larger should Congress vote to deny funding, and the President chooses to find another way to get the money he wants. Personally, if such circumstances come about, I hope he does try to circumvent Congress... it would be difficult NOT to impeach him in such a case.

apparently some of you folks can't read. As edna mentioned a few post earlier, the questions about congressional powers are being posed to the attorney general, not to the president.

please, let's all make an effort to temper knee-jerk reactions with thoughtful, informed responses instead. it will serve us better in the long run...

I'm wondering when Congress will decide they've fed the Exec enough 'rope' and actually hang 'em by it? There comes a time when enough is enough....so, when is that time for Congress? When the Pres is elected in 2008? Heck, give him that much time, and he'll try to nuke Iran, and we won't have a country left to defend.

Get the whole corrupt crew out as soon as practicable, please? I want my country back....

This is a lawyer's move -- and a good one.

It sets things up not only for PR purposes, but also for any eventual constitutional showdown that involves the courts.

Gonzales can refuse to reply, in which case Bush looks arrogant and, if the Supreme Court comes in later loses standing to complain that Congress is disregarding the proper powers of the presidency,

Or Gonzales can make an unreasonable assertion of imperial powers on the President's part -- in which case Bush looks arrogant and dangerous, and if the Court gets dragged in, it is less likely to be sympathetic to Bush's assertion of power.

Or Gonzales can say something reasonable, and thus give support to the Congress' power to restrict Bush's actions in the war.

Could this be a potential early precursor to impeachment hearings for Gonzo? If he finally is outed as an anti-constitution AG, won't Leahy find him in violation of his oath and call for his removal?

I don't see this as an actual query so much as a set up. and not a moment too soon.

This is a perfect example of "Democrat" vs. "Republican" thinking.

Who cares what Gonzo thinks?

Stop being so polite, so considerate of his views.

Take action or leave DC, guys.

The Congress is setting itself up for a Constitutional showdown that it probably cannot win. If they try to go past setting conditions to funding then they are treading very close to violating the separation of powers. I see the same argument being used now by Bush opponents that have been used by supporters for years - the exigencies of the current situation justify dancing on the edge, or allegedly stepping over the edge, of the Constitution.

This smacks of "What is the proper way to dissent?" that Tony Snow proved unable to answer.

Excellent.

barrelofmonkeys,

It might be worthwhile to keep a calendar nearby and remind yourself just how long the current Congress has been on the job now. With the exception of Senator Lieberman (or rather, with his inclusion, much to my disappointment) I think things are right on schedule with the fabled Return to Oversight. I am very much looking forward to having a Senate that actually performs like a functioning body should, rather than one which just cashes their checks and hops on the first flight back to their districts.

I THINK I know the intent of the letter.
They want our AG to commit his thinking and legal "theory" to paper in case the matter ends up before the SOTU.
I suppose it could also be used as grist for a turn on the millstone of impeachment should it come to that.
It's encouranging in a small way that at least he's being challenged -- something that would never have happened if the GOP still held a majority in congress.

I will pay to hear Gonzales's testimony re: the questions asked. When I listened to his recent tortured testimony regarding the constitutional prohibition of suspension of habeas corpus and how the inclusion of the prohibition against suspension did not mean that the constitution supported the right to habeas corpus, I was in disbelief. Thankfully, Leahy (and clearly the committee staff) came back at him with the language of the first amendment (i.e. no allowance for the infringement of free speech or religious freedom) and asked him if that construction meant that we were not guaranteed free speech and freedom of religion. I honestly have never heard such a tortured reading of the constitution -- not in law school, not in law practice, not in any legislative hearings. I left the testimony thinking "either this man is incredibly disingenuous, an incredibly inept lawyer/constitutional scholar, or both." Which is it?!

Like the rest of the major players in the Bush administration (note the insulting reference to the "Bush-Cheney Administration in the Leahy press release -- intentional?!), Gonzales alternately makes me chuckle in disbelief and scares me to death...figuratively, for now.

This is comment enough.

"Cut off funding for the war. Leave enough money for the speedy withdrawal of our troops and bring our sons and daughters home."

Written by:

Amy Branham
A Gold Star Mother
of
Sgt. Jeremy R. Smith
November 1981 - February 2004

Many traps will be laid this year for the fascist gang in the White House. I Congress gets enough pressure they can proceed to impeachment.

Hopefully, we can get our country back from this gang of thieves.

The WH already circumvented Congress' power of the purse...by taking $700,000 allocated to the Afghanistan war, and using it to begin planning for Iraq. I have long pointed out this is manifestly unconstitutional, and pretty much everyone yawns." -- renato

It isn't clear what you mean by 'everybody,' but this illegal act is amply documented in the original online version of the Conyers' report.

(I have a signed copy of the published work, but haven't had time to read all of it -- the issue doesn't seem to be in the print copy).

Illegal diversion of funds is undoubtedly on Conyers' radar, and I'm pretty sure that Waxman will be vetting this issue as well.

... 'express congressional power to “raise and support Armies” and to appropriate funds for their use is further circumscribed by the Constitution in order to require congressional action periodically by limiting such funding to no longer than two years.'

when is the next time this congressional action will be necessary? a "no" vote to have a military would certainly solve a lot of problems. i know, i know, it's wishful thinking ... and many of you are screaming (i can hear you through the internets) that "we need a military." but considering the complete irresponsibility of our "leaders" and that realistically no other country would even consider attempting to invade our shores (our private citizens hold a frightening array of weaponry on their own), we would be doing ourselves and the rest of the world a big favor by taking the toys away from the children.

Those of you criticising this move don't seem to grasp 2 essential facts:
1. They've asked the AG for his legal opinion on what the limits are to the war powers of Congress. This is entirely correct as the AG / Justice Dept is suppossed to serve all of the US Govt & it's citizens and not just the President. These Senators of course already know what those powers are, having outlined them in the letter, but...
2. ...Abu Gonzales will now be on record with one of 2 responses that will allow the committee to nail his ass to the wall, however he answer. Either he agrees that Congress - as detailed in the Constitution - has the chief powers to initiate, conduct and, if necessary, end wars OR he tries to bluff his way through the 'unitary executive / commander in chief' hogwash.

If he does the first then he's admitting that Bush has to back off and listen to Congress, something that may shock many of the blow hards on the right and finally allow for a more meaningful and forceful role for Congress in the conduct of this war. If he states the second then a number of Senators will promptly demand his resignation or removal from office for showing his clear contempt for the Constitution.

I hope he chooses the second as his removal from office would be great foretaste of more to come.

"Thanks to you intelligent folks.

Shame on you folks who seem completely incapable of reading or comprehending basic high school civics before you randomly spout ignorant catch-phrases.

Leahy is setting a trap for Gonzales. One of many to come. Just like he asked Gonzales about habeus corpus two weeks ago.
Posted by: Douglas Watts
Date: January 30, 2007 08:11 PM"

----
What you seem to have forgot, is that CIVICS in high school is no longer taught! It is out of the picture...It's to DUMP down the next two generation of voters and future ones.

The youth of today, have no clue on social issues!
The only thing that would WAKE them up is a draft!

So..parents educate your youth now on civics and society! Have them read the newspaper and debate it regardless of their views!

It is there civic duty to vote, but how can they vote if they don't understand their government: local, state and federal level!

hello

Pioneering screenwriter Nigel Kneale, best known for the Quatermass TV serials and films, dies aged 84...

Pioneering screenwriter Nigel Kneale, best known for the Quatermass TV serials and films, dies aged 84...

The first stage of a £150m investment in regional museums is praised for boosting visitor numbers...

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery.