{"id":68424,"date":"2007-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-18T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/01\/18\/congres-versus-gw-en-avant-pour-les-extremes\/"},"modified":"2007-01-18T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-01-18T00:00:00","slug":"congres-versus-gw-en-avant-pour-les-extremes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/01\/18\/congres-versus-gw-en-avant-pour-les-extremes\/","title":{"rendered":"Congr\u00e8s versus<\/em> GW : en avant pour les extr\u00eames"},"content":{"rendered":"

La crise institutionnelle entre le Congr\u00e8s et GW Bush \u00e0 propos de l’Irak semble devoir \u00e9voluer vers une crise constitutionnelle grave, si certains projets se concr\u00e9tisent. La situation se tend chaque jour un peu plus.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t D\u00e9sormais, l’opposition \u00e0 GW est bipartisane. Le s\u00e9nateur r\u00e9publicain Chuck Hagel est devenu co-sponsor<\/em> de la r\u00e9solution non-contraignante pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e au S\u00e9nat, qui condamne l’envoi de troupes suppl\u00e9mentaires en Irak. Interview\u00e9 par CNN (relay\u00e9 par RAW Story<\/a>), Hagel a eu des mots tr\u00e8s durs : Hagel \u00absought to remind the president that the Congress is a co-equal branch of government, this is not a monarchy, and that on November 7th, the people changed the management in Congress. The bill Hagel was now getting behind is just the beginning, the Vietnam Veteran senator pledged.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t Certains s\u00e9nateurs d\u00e9mocrates commencent \u00e0 r\u00e9clamer des mesures plus dures que la r\u00e9solution non-contraignante en train d’\u00eatre discut\u00e9e. C’est le cas de Clinton (Hillary), qui sent le vent tourner et se d\u00e9couvre de plus en plus une adversaire de la guerre en Irak. C’est le cas du s\u00e9nateur Dodd, du Connecticut, qui veut pr\u00e9senter une r\u00e9solution interdisant le pr\u00e9sident d’augmenter d\u00e9sormais les forces US en Irak sans autorisation du Congr\u00e8s. Cette initiative appara\u00eet comme particuli\u00e8rement d\u00e9stabilisante (selon l’International Herald Tribune<\/a>), et effectivement porteuse d’un conflit constitutionnel potentiel.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abDodd’s proposal drew a sharp response from Snow, the White House’s spokesman, who said, To tie one’s hand in a time of war is a pretty extreme move.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe idea of a congressionally mandated troop cap for Iraq could face constitutional questions.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbSome Republicans say that while Congress can cut off funding for U.S. forces abroad, it cannot meddle with the constitutional authority of a president, as commander-in-chief, to broadly control the military.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe power to cut off funding does not imply the authority to effect lesser restrictions, such as establishing benchmarks or other conditions on the presidents direction of the war, David Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey, Washington lawyers who served in the Justice Department during earlier Republican administrations, wrote Tuesday in The Washington Post. Congress cannot, in other words, act as the president’s puppet master.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbSnow, the spokesman, agreed. While lawmakers can do whatever they want, he said, there are clear delineations between the constitutional responsibilities and also the abilities of the separate and coequal branches.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBut Dodd took a different position. A statement from his office said that the authority Congress provided the president in 2002 to intervene in Iraq never contemplated that U.S. troops would be engaged in a civil war in Iraq.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe earlier authorization, Dodd told reporters, was absolutely obsolete. He said that while other proposals relied on cutting funds for the military, he would use the authorization process instead, as he said Congress successfully did in 1973, 1983, 1984 and 2000 to limit U.S. troops in, respectively, Vietnam, Lebanon, Europe and Colombia.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 18 janvier 2007 \u00e0 10H16<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La crise institutionnelle entre le Congr\u00e8s et GW Bush \u00e0 propos de l’Irak semble devoir \u00e9voluer vers une crise constitutionnelle grave, si certains projets se concr\u00e9tisent. La situation se tend chaque jour un peu plus. D\u00e9sormais, l’opposition \u00e0 GW est bipartisane. Le s\u00e9nateur r\u00e9publicain Chuck Hagel est devenu co-sponsor de la r\u00e9solution non-contraignante pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e au… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[6340,3285,6341,6339,4841,857],"class_list":["post-68424","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-conflit","tag-congres","tag-constitutionnel","tag-dodd","tag-hagel","tag-irak"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68424","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68424"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68424\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}