"I swear by Allah, the orphanage, it attacked me! I was just defending myself with that 5 kilos of plastic explosive packet with ball bearings! Am I not allowed to defend myself, Mr Crusader?"

Democratic politicians want dictate the Rules of Engagement to soldiers? Why that's absurd. I mean there's no precedent for such a thing!

This opens the door for al Qaeda to wear fake insurgent uniforms and thus be totally protected....

The Dems want a "Commander in Chief Committee". Must be one of those emanations of a penumbra type of things.....

So, when some Shi'ite militia guy with Iranian backing uses an EFP or is planning to attack US forces, we should ignore him? We should just take the blows because he's not "al Qaeda"?

Or, if the guy is from the Ansar al Sunna or Ba'athi R us and attacks US forces, we should ignore him because his organization swears they are independent and does not have the name "Al Qaeda" or any pledge to support "al Qaeda" in their "manifesto"?

Do these guys have any idea how these groups are organized or how they work in conjunction with each other?

The demo over-reaching has been much harder and faster than I ever expected. Another 18 months of this and they'll be out on their butts again.

Incredible! I wonder if Harry could show me in the Constitution where it says that the Senate is tasked with commanding the armed forces....I don't think he could. LOL. But I bet he could show me some great land deals in Nevada or maybe even get me some front row seats for a boxing match. Givmeuhbreak....

There have been countless pixels killed in the defense of the idea that "Congress said we could, even though the reasons we gave weren't fully true, so we can do anything we think it takes to get the job done."

If a large part of the Administration's case rests with "Congress passed the resolution," then doesn't Congress's rescinding the resolution have the same weight?

If not, why not? Congress can pass laws and repeal them; can't it pass resolutions and repeal them? Has any scholarly work at all been done on this topic?

Has any scholarly work at all been done on this topic?

The US Constitution itself? Article 1 section 9?

Avenger:

When I look at Article 1, section 9, I'm seeing slave trade, bill of attainder, taxation, appropriations and titles of nobility. Am I missing something?

Doc,

Executive branch has control of the military. Period. That is why the President is the Commander in Chief. He calls the shots, not Congress - for any reason. When Congress says that one version of their bill is to restrict the troops from engaging anyone other than Al Quaeda, they are in effect trying to craft the rules of engagement to be used. That is NOT their prerogative. It lies outside their constitutional authority.

What I am seeing is an attempt by the Dims to broaden the powers of the Congress beyond what the constitution allows. Gee - Isn't that what the left was all ablather about over the issue the TSP? And now they seem to think it's OK for their side to do what they accused the President of doing. Get a grip.

In the same vein, only Congress can declare war. The Administration continues to insist that we are at war, yet there was no declaration of war--only a resolution that allowed the President to use force.

Only Congress can write and pass legislation, yet the President continues to perform much the same job by altering legislation as he sees fit by signing statements.

The point I'm trying to make here is that a lot of the assumptions we've had over the years about the separation of powers have been challenged of late. All three branches reach for more power than strict constructionists would give them. In our discussions, we need to deal with the real-world scenario.

Congress has control of the public purse. That's a legitimate use of its Constitutional power. This includes money to be spent on the military.

Ahhh...yes....but not regulating the rules of engagement - that is way beyond their purview. And remember that the President can use the troops without declaring war. Not that hard to understand.

Doc, the Dems have repeatedly said they will not cut off the funding, strictly for political cover. In addition, resolutions authorizing military action have been ruled as the functional and legal equivalent of a declaration.