Obama's stop the war bill

It took two weeks, and it wasn't worth the wait. There's not much to it - it's carefully designed to be a noose that Bush slips around his neck either by accepting or vetoing. It contains nothing of substance, and is larded with anti-war talking points; as politics, it's quite clever, but as a serious bit of legislative work, it's pretty weak.

Section 3 caps troop levels in Iraq at their 1/10/07 levels. Section 4(a) demands that they begin to reduce "in a gradual manner ... at a pace to achieve the goal of the complete redeployment" -- that's a cute euphemism for "retreat" -- "of all United States combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008"; section 4(b) permits a 90 day "suspen[sion] on a temporary basis" of the retreat if the President jumps through certain hoops and his mommy (I mean, Congress) gives him permission. Section 4(g) permits forces to remain in Iraq to protect U.S. personnel and facilities, to conduct targeted counter-terrorism operations and to train the Iraqi forces (again subject to Congressional disapproval, without which forces carrying out those activities must also be withdrawn). Section 7 demands that the President file a report with Congress outlining how he intends to "prevent[] the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider regional war," and that he appoint a Special envoy to Iraq, charged with "undertak[ing] comprehensive regional and international initiatives ... including promoting a political settlement among the Iraqi people" -- which is obviously a new idea that has occurred to no one else -- "ending the civil war in Iraq, preventing a humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq, and preventing a regional conflict."

This bill utterly fails to make use of Congress' principal power over the executive branch, viz., the power of the purse (you'll find not a word about defunding), and frankly - to the extent that its principal ingredients seem to infringe on the Commander in Chief power by attempting to direct what the President does with the military forces of the United States - is very possibly unconstitutional. But "[a]s commander-in-chief, [the President] is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States," Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603, 615 (1850). Moreover:

Congress has the power not only to raise and support and govern armies but to declare war. It has, therefore, the power to provide by law for carrying on war. This power necessarily extends to all legislation essential to the prosecution of war with vigor and success, except such as interferes with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns. That power and duty belong to the President as commander-in-chief. Both these powers are derived from the Constitution, but neither is defined by that instrument. Their extent must be determined by their nature, and by the principles of our institutions.

The power to make the necessary laws is in Congress; the power to execute in the President. Both powers imply many subordinate and auxiliary powers. Each includes all authorities essential to its due exercise. But neither can the President, in war more than in peace, intrude upon the proper authority of Congress, nor Congress upon the proper authority of the President ... Congress cannot direct the conduct of campaigns

Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 139 (1866) (emphases added).