US Congress weighing strength of its war powers

Congress weighing strength of its war powers
POSTED: 9:49 a.m. EST, January 30, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- No one challenges the notion that Congress can stop
a war by withholding the money to pay for it.

In fact, Vice President *** Cheney challenged the Democrat-controlled
Congress to back up its objections to President Bush's plan to put
21,500 more troops in Iraq by zeroing out the war budget.

Few expect such a drastic move, but there are other legislative
options to force the war's end, say majority Democrats and some of
Bush's traditional Republican allies.

The alternatives range from capping the number of troops permitted in
Iraq to cutting off money for troop deployments beyond a certain date
or setting an end date for the war.

"The Constitution makes Congress a coequal branch of government. It's
time we start acting like it," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-
Wisconsin, who is chairing a hearing Tuesday on Congress' war powers
and forwarding legislation to eventually prohibit spending for the
deployment of troops to Iraq.

His proposal, like many others designed to force an end to U.S.
involvement in the bloody conflict, is far from having enough support
even to come up for a vote on the Senate floor.

Closer to that threshold is a nonbinding resolution declaring that
Bush's proposal to send 21,500 more troops to Baghdad and Anbar
province is "not in the national interest." The Senate could take up
that measure early next month. (Watch why Congress bothers with
nonbinding resolutions )

But some senators, complaining that the resolution is symbolic, are
forwarding tougher bills.

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, for example, is a sponsor
of a bill that would call for troops to come home in 180 days and
allow for a minimum number of forces to be left behind to hunt down
terrorists and train Iraqi security forces.

"Read the Constitution," Boxer told her colleagues last week. "The
Congress has the power to declare war. And on multiple occasions, we
used our power to end conflicts."

Congress used its war powers to cut off or put conditions on spending
for the Vietnam war and conflicts in Cambodia, Somalia and Bosnia.

Under the Constitution, lawmakers have the ability to declare war and
finance military operations, while the president has control of
military forces.

But presidents also can veto legislation, and Bush likely has enough
support in Congress on Iraq to withstand any veto override attempts.

Managing a war -- in effect what Boxer and Feingold are proposing --
is the president's job, some lawmakers and scholars say.

"In an ongoing operation, you've got to defer to the commander in
chief," said Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, ranking Republican on the
Senate Armed Services Committee. But the veteran senator and former
Navy secretary said he understands the debate over Congress' ability
to check the executive branch.

"Once Congress raises an army, it's his to command," said Robert
Turner, a law professor at the University of Virginia who was to
testify Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In recent decades, presidents have routinely bypassed Congress when
deploying troops to fight. Not since World War II has Congress issued
an official declaration of war, despite lengthy wars fought in Vietnam
and Korea.

Congress does not have to approve military maneuvers.

John Yoo, who as a Justice Department lawyer helped write the 2002
resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion, called that document a
political one designed only to bring Democrats on board and spread
accountability for the conflict.

The resolution passed by a 296-133 vote in the then-GOP-run House and
77-23 in the Democratic-led Senate, but it was not considered a
declaration of war.

.