Iraqi Withdrawal - a constitutional problem?

My Observations thinks Congress' legislating the funds for our Iraqi misadventure invades the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. I am not so sure that he does not have a point but that I am going to agree to that this is not a check on the same powers of the President that My Observations wants to protect.

The Constitution gives to Congress the power to declare war. In the past sixty years, the Executive eroded this power of Congress. Now comes a reckoning for both Congress and the Executive. The confusion caused by this erosion has a good example in this post on a self-confessed far right blog. I also suggest this article on a Libertarian site: Presidential War Powers. If you want to see what a Declaration of War looks like, there are several here. The following is the one deals with Italy:

"Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the
Government of Italy which has thus been thrust upon the United States is
hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and
directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United
States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the
Government of Italy; and, to bring the conflict to a successful
termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by
the Congress of the United States."

The resolution contains the conditions for ending the war against Mussolini's Italy: a successful termination against the Italian government. Termination meaning either our government's surrender or the Italian government's surrender. With Iraq, Bush made clear that we were that there as occupiers has consistently evaded when we are to leave Iraq. Depending on what criteria Bush stated at what time, one can say that Bush's criteria for leaving Iraq have been met (seen my post on Richardson's speech below).

Without a check on war spending, the Executive could wage an unending war. Bush's argument seems to be that so long as he has authority to fight a way, the Congress must pay for it. Louis Fisher writes in Exercising Congress’s Constitutional Power to End a War (originally a statement before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary January 30, 2007) follows:

In recent years, advocates of presidential authority have argued that the title “Commander in Chief” empowers the President to initiate military operations against other countries and to continue unless Congress cut off all funds, presumably by mustering a two-thirds majority in each House to overcome an expected presidential veto. Such a scenario means that a President could start and continue a war so long as he had at least one-third plus one in a single chamber of Congress. Nothing in the writings of the framers, the debates at Philadelphia and the ratifying conventions, or the text of the Constitution supports that theory.

I suggest Mr. Fisher describes the method that implements what I call Bush's theory.

One cannot say the people who created our Constitution possessed our current ignorance of history. The Founders' history included how Charles I warred until he needed funds from Parliament and that in turn lead to him losing his head:

Charles came to the throne amid pressure from English Protestants for intervention against Spain and the Catholic powers in the religious wars raging in Europe (the Thirty Years War, 1618-48). He allowed England's foreign policy to be directed by the unpopular Duke of Buckingham, who launched a series of disastrous military expeditions against Spain and France with the aim of indirectly assisting the Palatinate. Charles dissolved his first two Parliaments when they attempted to impeach Buckingham but he was forced to call a third because he needed funds to pursue his warlike policies. In 1628, Charles' opponents formulated the Petition of Right as a defence against the King's arbitrary use of his powers. Charles grudgingly accepted the Petition in the hope that Parliament would grant him subsidies, but in practice he ignored its provisions.

Mr. Fisher also mentioned Charles I, but that is not the only reason I am impressed with his article. Fisher also cites Lincoln with a quotation devasting to our current President and his misadventure into Iraq.

The Constitution provides only one check upon the Executive's ability to make unlimited war and that is Congress's power of the purse. I am wondering about all the complaining by Bush's conservative supporters at this apparent usurpation of Constitutional authority. To me the truly conservative position would be to uphold the letter of Constitution and the intent of the Framers. Instead, we have a neurotic rush to support the arbitrary power of the Executive which seems decidedly unconservative.

Not that Congress does not share blame for the current constitutional tension. Instead of the rush to fall in behind a warlike Executive, perhaps we soon shall see a Legislative Branch willing to stand upon its Constitutional powers. I will give Congress the explanation but not the excuse that it never before faced a President proposing this country engage in pre-emptive war and who was serious in his ability to wage that pre-emptive war.

Congress must act or we are left with the prospect of a President unlimited in his capacity to wage war without end with the consequences of ruining the public finances and our citizens dead.