[Orin Kerr, March 28, 2007 at 1:47pm] Trackbacks
"What Would the Iraq Redeployment Bills Actually Do, Anyway?":
Marty Lederman has this interesting post over at Balkinization.
Xmas (mail) (www):
You know, Dog forbid, the public actually gets to read the text of bills being debated (or psuedo-debated via inserts into the Congressional Record) before Congress.
3.28.2007 7:34pm
Oren (mail):
I don't think the public was ever interested in reading the actual text of the bill.

In any democracy the public needs someone to explain, in simple terms, how these complex and technical things operate. We saw the news networks doing a fairly good job on this during the Senate confirmation debates and explaining the rules on cloture and so forth.

On many other topics, however, the media has done a terrible job at impartially explaining *what* the bill does before going off on partisan rants for/against.
3.28.2007 8:23pm
Lev:
Shoot. How many people read the text of bills being debated unless they are paid to do it?

In any event, I think Bush will sign it because the military needs the money, and he will use a signing statement to state that he will ignore the pullout dates as a violation of separation of powers.
3.29.2007 12:51am
AMDG:
A question I've had, and particularly since reading extracts from the bills, is whether there is consitutional precedent or an expectation that the Executive branch can or should take military commands from Congress.

Congress is vested with the power to declare a state of war; I might understand if the bill said that US military forces are no longer authorized to wage war against Iraqi insurgents past such and such a date, but the bills don't say that. They use a specific term: "redeployment." Redeployment seems like a tactical decision. Perhaps it might construed as a strategic issue, but either way the redeployment of military forces seems like a job for the part of government identified as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Full disclosure: I'm neither a lawyer nor a con law expert, just a curious student.
3.29.2007 11:45am
Brian P (mail):
AMDG: I believe the "commander in chief" title is consistently touted too much. The navy, for example, has Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet; does that mean the Secretary of the Navy or the President is not allowed to issue him orders in the Atlantic Ocean? One of the most straightforward demonstrations that the President wages war within bounds set by Congress is Congress's setting laws on rules for battlefield engagement (e.g., Geneva Protocols on chemical weapons in warfare; or heck,even the Geneva Conventions on prisoners).

I am not an expert myself; but in the readings I've done of immediately post-revolutionary or even civil war period, it seems clear that Congress has traditionally been involved in the military affairs of the country. It's not simply a matter of Congress declaring/undeclaring war and letting the grownups President get about the business.
3.29.2007 1:49pm