? for smart type people who can explain things to a dummy Nancy Pelosi?

[Botany]

Now I have seen it posted that Pelosi and the dems could stop funding
of the war. Is this true? What about the senate's job in funding of the
troops? Under what authority could she do this? Is this O.K.ed by the
Consitution?

Thanx so much.

[baldguy]

1. Funding bills originate in the House.

[mike_c]

2. article I section VIII of the U.S. Constitution....

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0310-29.htm

The Constitution gives to Congress, in Article 1, Section 8, the powers:

“To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations;

“To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

“To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

“To provide and maintain a Navy;

“To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;”

And, “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.”

These powers are numerous, and the authority to “make all laws” for executing those powers could not be more sweeping.

Throughout our history, Presidents have tried to usurp that authority. In doing so, they have run into the principled opposition of some of our foremost constitutional authorities in the Senate.

Here is Daniel Webster, speaking about the Mexican War, on November 6, 1846:

“If the war should become odious to the people, if they shall disapprove the objects for which it appears to be prosecuted, then it will be the bounden duty of their representatives in Congress to demand of the President a full statement of his objects and purposes, and if those purposes shall appear to them not to be founded in the public good, or not consistent with the honor and character of the country, then it shall be their duty to put an end to it, by the exercise of their constitutional authority. . . . If Congress, in whom the war-making power is expressly made to reside, is to have no voice in the declaration or continuance of war, if it is not to judge of the beginning or carrying it on, then we depart at once from the Constitution.”

more@link

[Botany]

4. But what part of art. 1 section 8 gives the power to the House?

I see Senate quoted here but the senate is the problem .....
Can Nancy by pass the Senate to stop the war yes or no?

[mike_c]

5. in a word, yes....

The constitution does not limit new appropriations bills to the House, but that has been the practice of the Congress since it first began. Traditionally, the House refuses to consider appropriations bills originating in the Senate. Here's some more info:

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/approps_proc.htm

[Milo_Bloom]

7. Huh?

Bypass the senate? Of course not. However, either branch can be a roadblock.

Think Phil Spector. Unless you get everyone (congress and senate) to act no funding bill can go forward.

The mistake the democrats keep making is they believe the American people are entirely idiots. They seem to think that if they don't pass a funding bill, the American people will believe they are not supporting the troops. However the argument is easy to frame.

Put together a PLAN that includes mandates for full deployment. Attach the funding to the mandates withdrawl. Yes the GOP will whine, yes, the president will threaten VETO.

THROW IT BACK ON THEM AND STAND FIRM.

We proposed a withdrawl plan with plenty of funding to protect the troops. The GOP is CHOOSING to block it and thus, the GOP is defunding the troops.

[polichick]

3. I posted this yesterday, Gravel's take on it:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3564729&mesg_id=3568216>

[mohc]

6. It is really quite simple

What Pelosi has to do to stop funding for the war: nothing.

To be more specific, to end new funding for the war, the House needs to either explicitly pass a bill ending the funding, or simply not pass a bill at all. The first option will not work because the President will veto, and the house will not be able to override. But by doing nothing, passing no bill, funding would also end. Neither the President or Republicans in Congress can force a bill to be passed, and for there to be funding a bill must first be passed.

[Maribelle]

8. OK, let's say both houses voted to cut off funding and Bush did not veto it.

First, can anyone prove the corrupt Bush will not divert funds from Seniors, Veterans, Education, Medicare, Social Security, or any of the other places where he has already stolen money from? Because we had better proceed on the thesis that Bush cannot be trusted with even a single dollar.

Second, where will the money come from to bring the troops home?

Third, additional and unnecessary deaths will occur due to the things Bush will slash before he stops paying his cronies in their lavish multi million dollar mansion they call the US Embassy?

[mike_c]

9. money to bring the troops home....

The regular military appropriations bill that already pays for the cost of operating the military. The Pentagon is awash in money. The supplemental bills are to fund continuing the war. And if the Pentagon needs additional funds to withdraw the troops, I'm sure Congress would be happy to pass a supplemental bill FOR THAT PURPOSE-- if the Pentagon asks.