The Debate About Withdrawing the Troops

Like many news oulets, the Washington Post offers this story about the Seante Debate on Iraq that is failing miserably for the Democrats. Most stories in both the MSM and online are dealing with the political aspect of the debate. The WaPo is talking about how it characterizes the 2008 presidential race, still others are talking about the impact for the Congressional elections this year. But today's Post story does raise one iteresting point that I believe is not be dicsussed enough, the Constitutional implications of the efforts.

The Kerry-Feingold plan would order President Bush to withdraw nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by July 31, 2007. The alternative, sponsored by two Democrats not weighing White House bids -- Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Jack Reed (R.I.) -- is a nonbinding resolution urging Bush to begin a troop "redeployment" by the end of this year. It does not specify a pace or a completion date.

As of this writing, both measures have failed on mostly party-line votes, with Senators Lieberman (D-CT) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) voting with Republicans.

But the key language in the Kerry-Feingold plan is that the legislation would "order President Bush to withdraw." This legislation would have the same legal effect as a non-binding resolution, i.e. NONE. The Kerry-Feingold plan is unconstitional on its face.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constituion names the President "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." Congress's war power is limited to declarations of war and financially providing for an Army and Navy, as written in Article I, Section 8.

In short,the Congress has no authority to order a troop withdrawal, and no right to tell the President how he shall conduct the war in Iraq or indeed any war. Make no doubt about it, we are in a war against terrorism and Islamofacism. Whether you support the idea of the war, or the President's prosecution of the war, Congress authorized the President to conduct these operations (remember, John Kerry voted for it before he voted against it). Once that is done, the conduct and course of the war are matters for the Commander in Chief to decide. If anyone doesn't like it, the next election for the President is in two years and change, you will get a new President then.

The Framers, in their genius, understood something that Sens. Kerry, Feingold and many others fail to grasp; you cannot run a war by committee. There must be one commander; one "decider" if you will. Congress could, of course, pass legislation forbidding the spending of any money for operations in Iraq, but that would be political suicide, since everyone in the country seems to "Support the Troops."

So the sponsors of the Kerry-Feingold plan, two U.S. Senators who want to be President, jockeying for position among the liberal elite, need to take a refresher course in the Constitution and its structure.