It's been posted...

[wildbilln864]

in politics forum that the Greg amendment would transfer the purse srings to the president. This should never be allowed to happen!
Just wanted to spread the word. :hi:

[helderheid]

1. Thanks for letting us know! Recommended!

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

2. Wouldn't It Take A Constitutional Amendment To Accomplish Such A Task?

[Sherman A1]

3. Yes

[sandnsea]

5. That's what Republicans want

The Gregg amendment that says the Senate will not cut off any Iraq funding for current operations and will fund future operations. That's what this Iraq vote stalling is all about. I don't know why Democrats won't just come out and say it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. They want to make this a Constitutional Amendment???

ARE THEY FREAKIN' KIDDING ME? Do they REALLY think the Democrats are that freakin' stupid??? That's the ONLY option they have to stop this PSYCHO and his warmongering. sheesh. When hell freezes over, that may happen.:eyes:

Doesn't a Constitutional Amendment require a VOTE BY THE PEOPLE??? Judd Gregg and his repuke cohorts can't just Amend the Constituion on their own.

[sandnsea]

8. That would be an improvement!! nooo.. check this

the Gregg Amendment would have locked in funding for the war permanently. I don't even know how you vote to override the Constitution, but that's what the Gregg Amendment would have done, seems to me.

[unblock]

7. no, not as i understand it

this is an authorization, just like any other, of funds for a specific purpose. congress retains the power to pass a new law at any time that would stop the funding.

at least, that's my understanding.

[sandnsea]

9. I understood it to be permanent

That Congress would be committing to not defund the troops or war needs.

[unblock]

10. but it's a law ... and congress can reverse a law with another law

"permanent" language notwithstanding.

[sandnsea]

12. Check out this language

"It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursing their assigned missions."

How are you supposed to vote no on this? Congress *should* take action that endangers the troops???

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gregg+'frustrated'+with+Iraq+war&articleId=47144e3e-1171-4d7d-9963-54e7b8314f68

[sandnsea]

4. Another Blank Check For Bush

That's what Republicans want to do, exactly the opposite of what we voted for in November.

[originalpckelly]

11. No, let's remind you all, that's not what it is. That's the Gregg Amendment...

I myself got them confused. The Gregg Resolution, was proposed only yesterday. The line item veto crap was proposed last month. One's about giving the power of line item veto to the President, while the other says that Congress shouldn't cut off funds for the troops. The Democrats have the ability to vote against that and show the world they may choose to do that at a future date.

[sandnsea]

13. Don't let them play you

Gregg is a personal friend of George Bush's. This is just another cover-up for Bush partisan ploy.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gregg+'frustrated'+with+Iraq+war&articleId=47144e3e-1171-4d7d-9963-54e7b8314f68

[liberalla]

14. The last person who should have ANY purse strings within his

reach is this lunatic prez. :grr:

There's no way this will get through, right?

[liberalla]

15. Ooops! deleted dupe post

deleted dupe post