Here's a Stupid Question!
Douglas Laycock
laycockd at umich.edu
Wed Apr 4 08:29:29 PDT 2007
This is my recollection too, although I last studied this stuff as
an undergraduate 40 years ago. My fading memory is that in the
Glorious Revolution of 1688 that put William of Orange on the English
throne, he had to promise (or the new Bill of Rights provided) that he
would not engage in any foreign wars without parliamentary approval.
I had always thought that this was the basis for giving Congress the
power to declare war.
Quoting Robert Sheridan <bobsheridan at earthlink.net>:
> If I recall British parliamentary history sufficiently, always a
big
> risk, the monarch would enter the nation upon a war and expect
> Parliament to come up with the pounds sterling, which it did not
> always relish doing. Parliament's origin as an independent body
is
> found in its power of the purse. I see the current Congress v.
> President Bush controversy as rooted in that British-Parliamentary-
> U.S. Constitutional history. But we don't like to look that far
> back, as though it had nothing to do with us.
>
> Don't the citizens of the U.S. have a say in the entering of a
war,
> its conduct, and the circumstances of its ending? And if we do,
> don't we express that through our Congress? The president seems
to
> think that we express it primarily through Him, and that for
Congress
> to take a contrary stance, as it has been doing, is disloyal to
the
> country, the troops, and to Him. Yet this is why they invented
> parliamentary bodies, such as Congress. To thwart the will of the
> king, or the wannabe king, especially if he goes off on a wild
tear
> and refuses to heed the call of a majority of the voting
electorate
> to please come back before too much (more) damage is done.
Cromwell;
> am I getting warm?
>
> Maybe I've got it wrong.
>
> rs
> sfls
>
> On Apr 1, 2007, at 1:32 PM, Sanford Levinson wrote:
>
>> I cannot refrain from asking whether this is just another
>> illustration of the costs, in the 21st century world, of the
>> presidential policy-based veto. Even if, arguendo, the President
>> cannot be forced by Congress to micromanage a war, a proposition
>> being examined in a seminal article by Marty Lederman and David
>> Barron, there is no plausible argument that setting a date for
>> withdrawal is "micromanagement." If one agrees that Congress has
>> the constitutional authority to compel withdrawal from a war (and
>> is there any plausible argument that it does not?), and if such a
>> law would be constitutional if passed over a presidential veto,
is
>> here any good argument for giving a president the authority to
>> negate the wishes of a majority of Congress that by stipulation
>> represents a majority of the public? Does the Constitution
really
>> establish a limited-time presidential dictatorship about the most
>> central issues of war and peace (and life and death)?
>>
>> sandy
>>
>> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Janet
Alexander
>> Sent: Sun 4/1/2007 12:34 PM
>> To: Rosenthal, Lawrence; Marty Lederman; RJLipkin at aol.com;
>> CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
>> Subject: RE: Here's a Stupid Question!
>>
>> Why would Congress have to pass a "clean" funding bill? Why not
>> with a differently worded withdrawal provision, or a 3-month
bill?
>> The President is increasingly isolated on the war, from voters,
>> from Congress, and from Republicans. Who thinks a veto is going
to
>> make voters love the war?
>>
>>
>> At 10:02 AM 4/1/2007 -0700, Rosenthal, Lawrence wrote:
>>> There is another answer to this question, but it is not legal.
By
>>> issuing a veto, the President forces Congress to back down and
>>> pass a "clean" funding bill. When Congress must swallow its
>>> reservations and pass such a bill, in some (swing voter?) eyes,
>>> the Democrats will look craven and cowardly -- battered into
>>> submission by a resolute President. It has always been unclear
to
>>> me what is gained by a Democratic strategy that requires the
>>> Democrats to eventually retreat from their opposition to funding
>>> the war. I note that the other day, Senator Durbin said that
the
>>> President will have to "compromise"; perhaps the Democrats
thought
>>> they would force negotiations. The President, however, shows no
>>> inclination to negotiate; and thus the Democrats seem to have
left
>>> themselves with no "exit strategy" from their own position on
>>> funding the war. The recent votes in the House and the Senate
may
>>> please the Democratic base in the short run, but it seems to me
>>> that given the President's willingness to force passage of a
clean
>>> bill, in the long run the Democratic strategy pleases no one,
>>> including the base. Yet another example of the Republicans
>>> outmaneuvering the Democrats politically, in my view, but what I
>>> regard as a successful Republican political strategy would be
>>> undermined if the President signed even a nonbinding bill
calling
>>> for phased withdrawal accompanied by a signing statement.
>>>
>>> Larry Rosenthal
>>> Chapman University School of Law
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Marty
Lederman
>>> Sent: Sun 4/1/2007 9:35 AM
>>> To: RJLipkin at aol.com; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
>>> Subject: Re: Here's a Stupid Question!
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's say the conferees agree on, and both houses vote for, the
>>> House bill, which requires redeployment out of Iraq by August
28,
>>> 2008. (I've posted the language of provisions here: http://
balkin.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-would-iraq-withdrawal-bills.html.)
>>>
>>> At that point, Bush could issue a signing statement to the
effect
>>> that section 1904(d) -- requiring redeployment by August 2008 --
>>> is unconstitutional, and signal that he won't comply with it.
He
>>> would be wrong about the constitutionality -- but if he were
>>> correct, the nonenforcement would be "permissible." Of course,
at
>>> the point in August 2008 when Bush fails to comply, Congress and
>>> the courts could step in to try to force compliance.
>>>
>>> What I don't think would be permissible would be for Bush to do
>>> what he does all the time -- i.e., invoke the avoidance canon to
>>> "construe" section 1904(d) not to mean what it so plainly says.
>>> In my view, he'd have to say flat-out that it's unconstitutional
>>> and that he won't abide by it.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: RJLipkin at aol.com
>>> To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
>>> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 11:09 AM
>>> Subject: Here's a Stupid Question!
>>>
>>>
>>> I know this is a stupid question, but I'll ask
it
>>> anyway. Why can't President Bush sign the congressional bill on
>>> funding for Iraq and issue a signing statement saying, in
effect,
>>> that he will interpret it consistent with his executive powers?
>>> See I told you it was stupid. I think I can answer it, but would
>>> much prefer those who know more about signing statements than I
>>> do--that is, every other list member--to show me the way.
Thanks.
>>>
>>> Robert Justin Lipkin
>>> Professor of Law
>>> Widener University School of Law
>>> Delaware
>>> 302-477-2193
>>>
>>> Ratio Juris, Contributor:
http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/[1]
>>> <http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/[2]>
>>> Essentially Contested America, Editor: http://
>>> www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com/?[3]
>>> ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get
>>> password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/[4]
>>> conlawprof
>>>
>>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot
>>> be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
>>> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and
>>> list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to
>>> others.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof[5]
>>>
>>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
viewed
>>> as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
>>> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list
>>> members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>> Janet Cooper Alexander
>> Frederick I. Richman Professor of Law
>> Stanford Law School
>> Stanford CA 94301-8610
>> 650.723.2892
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof[6]
>>
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
viewed
>> as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
>> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list
members
>> can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
734-647-9713
Links:
------
[1] /horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fratiojuris.blogspot.com%2F
[2] /horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fratiojuris.blogspot.com%2F
[3] /horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aol.com%2F%3F
[4]
/horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F
[5]
/horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fconlawprof
[6]
/horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fconlawprof
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20070404/8867f23e/attachment.htm
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list