> I suppose anything is *possible*. But there's little or > no precedent, that I can think of.
[...] Subsequently, the House voted on a number of measures relating to U.S. participation in the NATO operation in Kosovo. On April 28, 1999, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1569, by a vote of 249-180. This bill would prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the Defense Department from being used for the deployment of "ground elements" of the U.S. Armed Forces in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia unless that deployment is specifically authorized by law. On that same day the House defeated H.Con.Res. 82, by a vote of 139-290. This resolution would have directed the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove U.S. Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On April 28, 1999, the House also defeated H.J.Res. 44, by a vote of 2-427. This joint resolution would have declared a state of war between the United States and the "Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." The House on that same day also defeated, on a 213-213 tie vote, S.Con.Res. 21, the Senate resolution passed on March 23, 1999, that supported military air operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia. [...] - War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance CRS Issue Brief March 16, 2004 http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB81050.html On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Michael Smith <m...@smithbowen.net> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 15:01:01 -0500 > Robert Naiman <nai...@justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > >> I think it's possible that the Administration could not have gotten an >> authorizing resolution through the House. > > I suppose anything is *possible*. But there's little or > no precedent, that I can think of. > >> Furthermore, the significance of Congressional authorization and >> debate is not limited to whether the Congress votes up or down. It >> forces the Administration to answer questions about what it plans to >> do in public, and creates public debate. > > Actually, it stifles public debate. The parameters of > any Congressional "debate" are suffocatingly narrow, and take > for granted all the premises on which imperial military > adventures are based. It would be far better for public > debate if empty Congressional gabble went entirely unreported. > >> Those who are following events are learning things about what the U.S. >> is doing from what is going on in Congress this week. > > They'll learn a lot more, and be lied to a lot less, by > Al-Jazeera than by their local Congresional tapeworms. > > Really, fuck Congress. This civics-class constitutional > fetishism truly baffles me. Congress these days is about as > consequential as the Roman Senate under Vespasian. > >> Being determines consciousness. > > ... and vice-versa. It's so... dialectical! > > -- > -- > > Michael J. Smith > m...@smithbowen.net > > http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org > http://www.cars-suck.org > http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org nai...@justforeignpolicy.org _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
