home

Lieberman's Iraq Argument: Eviscerate the Separation of Powers

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 12:33:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Josh Marshall points to a Joe Lieberman statement where Lieberman essentially argues for evisceration of the separation of powers when it comes to the war power.

Lieberman starts with some correct analysis:

Congress has been given constitutional responsibilities. But the micro-management of war is not one of them. The appropriation of funds for war is. I appreciate that each of us here has our own ideas about the best way forward in Iraq, I respect those that take a different position than I, and I understand that many feel strongly that the President’s strategy is the wrong one. But the Constitution, which has served us now for more than two great centuries of our history, creates not 535 commanders-in-chief, but one—the President of the United States, who is authorized to lead the day to day conduct of war.

As I have written before, this is my view:

What is clear is that all this legal tapdancing get us nowhere. To end the war, the Congress can do one of two things, or preferably both: it can repeal the Iraq AUMF, and/or it can refuse to fund the war. This sophistry from Democrats, politicians and legal scholars, does neither us nor our principles credit.

Why does Lieberman argue for eviscerating the separation of powers? Because he urges Congress NOT to exercise its judgment in exercising the Spending Power. He urges the Congress just do what the President says:

Whatever our opinion of this war or its conduct, it is in no one’s interest to stumble into a debilitating confrontation between our two great branches of government over war powers. The potential for a constitutional crisis here and now is real, with congressional interventions, presidential vetoes, and Supreme Court decisions. If there was ever a moment for nonpartisan cooperation to agree on a process that will respect both our personal opinions about this war and our nation’s interests over the long term, this is it.

Lieberman gives this speech to the Congress. What does he say to the President? He cheers him. He supports the surge. He agrees one hundred percent with him.

This is Lieberman at his most disingenuous and dishonest. At least say it straight out Joe - you want to lick Bush's boots, then do it right.

The Congress needs to exercise its responsibility and defund the War. IF a Constitutional Crisis results, it will be because your hero George Bush does not respect the Constitution. And let's be honest, neither do you.

< Fitz's Objections to Libby's Theory of Defense Instruction | Gary Hart: Bring the National Guard Home From Iraq >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Lieberman's Iraq Argument: Eviscerate the Separation of Powers | 4 comments (4 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Lieberman Shmiberman (none / 0) (#1)
    by koshembos on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 01:07:11 PM EST
    When Lieberman denounced Clinton for having sex, it was quite clear that his moral compass is broken and missing its left part. Since then Lieberman is terribly and incessantly consistent. Ego the size of Mars and an intellect of a cockroach.

    It would be better if we ignore him and at best refer to him as Lieberman RIP.

    As Atrios would say... (none / 0) (#2)
    by David at Kmareka on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 02:16:51 PM EST
    Lieberman is a "wanker."  Were it not for the ultra-thin majority held by the Democrats in the Senate which confers undue influence upon this pathetic Joe-cur, he would in all likelihood be treated with all the tolerance of a yapping pug (which he resembles, albeit without the charm) by his former colleagues.

    In any regard, this Presidential Health Alert says it all.

    last time i checked (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 03:15:48 PM EST
    and i have a copy of the constitution on the bookshelf above my desk, the power of the purse strings is solely congress'. it is in no way to be confused with the micro-management of war. the two are easily separable.

    nowhere is it stated that congress cedes its budgetary authority to the president during times of conflict. in fact, that's probably the time it should tightly grasp that authority to its collective bosom.

    really, if this is the best that "tail gunner" joe can come up with, he'd be better off just being quiet.

    cpinva.... wanna bet?? (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 01:46:27 PM EST
    I agree. Congress can shut off funding, but they can tell the Execurive how to spend what they give him for the war.

    As for repealing the authorization... That will happen when both the House and the Senate has first, 60 votes to shut debate, and then, when passed, a two thirds majority to overcome the Presidents veto.

    Wanna make a bet on that happening??

    Parent

    Lieberman's Iraq Argument: Eviscerate the Separation of Powers | 4 comments (4 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment