Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (323817)	1/31/2007 11:22:12 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577007

"Conress has the power to declare war, can't they also declare that the war is over?" Probably. But, then what? Dubya has made it clear that he thinks that, as commander in chief, no one call tell him what to do. So if Congress were to pass such a law, and nothing happens, then what? Tell the FBI to arrest him?

To: Elroy who wrote (323817)	1/31/2007 12:06:31 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1577007

Conress has the power to declare war, can't they also declare that the war is over? Interesting question. Traditionally wars formally end with peace treaty or at least a durable cease fire agreement. For less the fully declared wars (an "authorization to use force", rather than a declaration of war) I guess you could still have either of those in theory (even if it doesn't seem likely in this case). A peace treaty would be negotiated by the executive, and then need a super majority to be ratified. The president gets no veto, but congress doesn't control the initial diplomacy so it can't really get the process started. A cease fire agreement could be more informal, but also wouldn't start with congress. Congress of course has the power to defund or impeach, but there isn't any clear power to "undeclare" a war. Esp. in cases of fully declared wars I think congress doesn't legitmately have that power. In the case of a war like this one (or Korea, or Vietnam etc.) where there is an authorization to use force, I guess congress could pass a bill to "deauthorize" the use of force. Whether the president would be compelled to stop using force isn't a constitutionally clear issue, in fact whether the president needed the authorization in the first place isn't constitutionally clear.