Do you support Webb's bill about Iran - If yes, email your senators to co-sponsor it.

[Mass]

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/justforeignpolicy.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11120

[Skinner]

1. Psst.

There's a typo in your headline.

[Mass]

2. Thanks...

[jmp]

3. The US Constitution prevents Bush from attacking Iran ...

Without congressional approval. Webb's bill does nothing but undermine the supreme law of the land.

Now if Webb wants to introduce a bill that mandates that the Democratic Congress grows a backbone ... I'm right there with him.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. I agree: why do we need a bill to mandate that they follow the Constitution?

[Enrique]

5. this is Webb's reasoning

he thinks the bill is necessary for specific reasons...


http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002675.php

(...)

“In signing the 2002 Iraq resolution, the President denied that the Congress has the power to affect his decisions when it comes to the use of our military. He shrugged off this resolution, stating that on the question of the threat posed by Iraq, his views and those of the Congress merely happened to be the same. He characterized the resolution as simply a gesture of additional support, rather than as having any legitimate authority. He stated, “my signing this resolution does not constitute any change in … the President’s constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests…”

“This is a sweeping assertion of powers that leaves out virtually nothing. It is a far different matter than repelling an immediate attack, or conducting a war that has been authorized by the Congress. Let’s just match up a couple of these words. The President is saying, for instance, that he possesses the authority to use force to “deter … threats to U.S. interests.” How do you use force to “deter” a threat, rather than preventing or responding to it? And what kind of “U.S. interest” is worthy of the use of force? And, most importantly, how do these vague terms fit into the historically accepted notions of a Commander in Chief’s power to repel attacks, or to conduct military operations once they have been approved by the Congress?

“Mr. President, during our recent hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I asked both the Secretary of State and the Deputy Secretary of State for clarification of this paragraph in the President’s signing statement. My question was whether this Administration believes it has the authority to conduct unilateral military operations against Iran in the absence of a direct attack or a compelling, immediate threat without the consent of the Congress. Both wrote me lengthy letters in reply, but neither could give me a clear responses. The situation that we now face is that the Administration repeatedly states that it seeks no war with Iran, at the same time it claims the authority to begin one, and at the same time it continues a military buildup in the region.

“The legislation I introduce today is intended to clarify this ambiguity. In so doing, the Congress will be properly restating its constitutional relationship with the executive branch. The Congress will be reinstituting its historical role as it relates to the conduct of foreign policy. And the Congress will be reassuring the American people that there will be no more shooting from the hip when it comes to the gravely serious question of when we send our military people into harm’s way.

(...)

[jmp]

6. "In signing the 2002 Iraq resolution, the President denied ..."

I don't care what he denied. If the President attacks Iran without the authorization of Congress, they can impeach him ... and Bush's opinion doesn't matter one lick.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Oh great. We can have another reason to impeach him.

Bush's opinion matters a great deal. If in his opinion it is time to order an attack on Iran an attack on Iran will occurr.

And I can't believe that on DU of all places people are taking the position that politics has become irrelevent; that we can all go on cruise control while the U.S. Constitution protects us from Bush launching an illegal war or gives us an even better reason to impeach him after the fact - with 5 months left in his term of office.

I have a secret for you. There is a reason why the neocon right has orchestrated a massive national anti-Iran propaganda campaign as a build up to war. They know that public opinion matters. They would not be making that effort if influencing the public regarding Iran were irrelevent to their plans to attack that nation. They do not count on majority approval from the public in order to attack Iran, but they can't afford to allow overwhelming disapproval in advance of military action there either.

This very specific, very pointed debate that Webb would force must be had in the United States Senate. Do you think Lieberman bothered to push a non binding anti-Iran resolution through the U.S. Senate out of mere bordom? Of course not. From his perspective it had nothing to do with what the United States constitution says or does not say. It had everything to do with advancing a apecific political climate regarding the U.S. and Iran. It is time to make the American public think long and hard about whether they want to trust allowing Bush and Cheney to decide again, in their lingering time left in office, when to start another war without specific congressional approval. We the People must speak out or war with Iran, or a new war before the 2008 Elections is likely. If Democrats shy away from even considering the Webb Amendment - why should the public take this threat seriously?

[BootinUp]

17. It may very well seem a worthless gesture to you and others

however, there is no question that Congress has ways to force court interpretation of laws they pass. I bet if you ask a constitutional expert they would agree that Webb is trying to reassert Congresses authority in the face of the ever expanding unitary executive principle, and that it is a good thing to do.

[Adelante]

24. This is what Webb said in February about why

Re: Iran, the first place to look in order to understand the possibilities inherent with this Administration is the "Presidential Signing Statement" that accompanied the 2002 Authorization to use force against Iraq. Those who participate in Daily Kos should get a copy of this signing statement. Its language is very troubling. Basically, the President asserts his authority to use force as Commander in Chief in almost any situation that he deems is a threat to American "interests" around the world.

Because of the vagueness of this language, and because of the many statements by this Administration, I am considering legislation that would clarify the authority of the Congress. The best clarification would be to say, simply, that no past legislation or policy gives the President the authority to conduct unilateral military attacks against Iran, without the consent of Congress.

by Jim Webb onThu Feb 15, 2007 at 04:19:18 PM CDT

[Adelante]

7. k&r

I've written a couple of times on Webb now and don't mind doing it again. Thanks! :thumbsup:

[Adelante]

8. To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

(Introduced in Senate)

S 759 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 759

To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 5, 2007

Mr. WEBB introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAN.

(a) Prohibition- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any Act, including any Act enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress enacted in a statute enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Exceptions- The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to military operations or activities as follows:

(1) Military operations or activities to directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran.

(2) Military operations or activities to directly thwart an imminent attack to be launched from within the territory of Iran.

(3) Military operations or activities in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter enter into Iran.

(4) Military operations or activities connected with the intelligence or intelligence-related activities of the United States Government.

(c) Report- Not later than 24 hours after determining to utilize funds referred to in subsection (a) for purposes of a military operation described in subsection (b), the President shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the determination, including a justification for the determination.

(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--

(1) the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

(2) the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.759:

[SergeyDovlatov]

9. I propose a Bill to force the president to read the constitution and

swear on the Bible to obey it.

I think he sweared to uphold it before, but since he did not read it he wasn't sure what it meant.

[Rhythm and Blue]

10. Hillary's the only candidate to have signed on to it. Obama guys, get your guy on the ball! nt

[Mass]

11. Not about either of them. About the bill!!! Call your senator!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Exactly Mass, and thank you for starting this thread

As far as I'm concerned I am pro pandering when it comes to stopping a war. If the reason why any Senator throws their support behind the Webb Amendment now is to pander to Democratic activists in response to our expressed strong feelings on this matter, YES!

The first step is to let ALL OF THEM know about our strong feelings on this; the good ones, the bad ones, and those in between.

[Rhythm and Blue]

15. I agree. I'm just trying to get the Obama guys on their senator.

As a presidential candidate, he has to be more careful with his votes than most senators do. He's not going to vote yes or no on anything unless he's certain its what people want.

[Dawgs]

25. See post #3

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. See post #12 n/t

[Cameron27]

13. K&R

[CarolNYC]

16. Thank you...

I've already done this....I hope others will follow suit.

[Adelante]

18. Write Senator Clinton

I wrote this via the form on her Senate website:

http://clinton.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm?subj=issue

Dear Senator Clinton:

I am pleased that you are co-sponsoring Senator Webb's bill S. 759, reaffirming Congressional power to declare war and prohibiting the use of funds for military operations in Iran absent congressional authorization. I write to urge you to do more. Please apply your influence in the Senate to press for the Webb-Clinton amendment to be immediately addressed by the Foreign Relations Committee and convince your Senatorial colleagues to commit their votes to its passage. Thank you.

Biden is the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and Obama and Dodd are members. I'm going to write to them, too.

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/about.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Nice. What a concept; directly asking Senators to do what you want them to do

It sure beats bitching and moaning. Thanks for leading by example on this.

[Adelante]

20. We have four candidates directly involved

One is a co-sponsor and the other three are on the committee in which the Webb amendment is resting. We should be able to pressure them into some action on this.

[gateley]

21. I just wrote them all - thanks for the nudge and info. nt

[Adelante]

22. That's terrific

:thumbsup:

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. It seems to me based on that information

that if netroots activists actually care about the Webb Amendment, we have all the potential leverage that we need in order to push it to a vote.

[incapsulated]

23. My Senator already is and was the first to do so.

Guess her name. :P

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Umm, Incap...

You have TWO Senators, remember? Both are Democrats too if I'm not mistaken (though some around here seem to think that I am).

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Kick - for the war drums grow louder n/t