In the news this week has been the Democrat bill that would provide funding for the troops in Iraq, but would also require that a withdrawal begin in October. It passed earlier this week, but Bush has promised to veto it.
What I haven’t heard mentioned is that Bush could have taken this as an opportunity to beat the Dems at their own game. As far as I have heard, the bill simply says that withdrawal has to begin in October, but is not any more specific. So why not start bringing soldiers home in October at a rate of one per month? Bush would get the funding, the Dems would get their withdrawal, and there would in all practical reality remain enough troops to continue the mission.
Oh, NICE ONE! I like that. Or, he could take the funding and just simply ignore that part of the bill since it’s unconstitutional anyway…
This is one of those times I wish there was a line-item veto. He could cross out the withdrawal and all the pork that the Demorats stuck on the bill in order to get the votes needed to pass it, but sign in the funding part.
One thing Minnesota has done right that the U.S. Congress has not is that we have a law that says you can\’t have an amendment to a bill that is unrelated to the bill itself.
If we are going to talk about un-Constitutionality, let’s talk about the Patriot act or any of the other numerous un-Constitutional laws rammed through in the name of some illusive safety.