What good is a non-binding (symbolic) resolution to oppose an escalation of the Iraq War

Quote :

"The non-binding resolution, which was also gaining interest from a second key Republican, would symbolically put the Senate on record as saying the U.S. commitment in Iraq "can only be sustained" with popular support among the American public and in Congress."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070117/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Yes, this thread was a result, in part, of watching Colbert Report, but it does also bring about a discussion... why can't we expect our Congress to take concrete, meaningful steps to provide checks on the executive branch? After all, Bush has the power to veto, which he hasn't used much in the past since Congress was controlled by the Republicans. You would think that facing an immense human and economic cost to the war, the time for symbolism is long past.

1/17/2007 3:47:21 PM

^And they have the power to override a veto as well...

1/17/2007 3:53:47 PM

Well on that note, yes Congress can veto but its so difficult to get the 2/3's required in both houses that it almost always kills a bill. The Supreme Court has to vote and get a consensus (9 members), the house has to vote (435 members) and the Senate does as well (100 members). The executive branch is the only one that doesn't have to reach a consensus or compromise... and that leads to abuse of authority.

The notion that one person, our president, can disregard the objections of Congress (that is supposed to provide checks on power), military commanders and the majority of Americans dissolves whatever illusion of democracy that we think we enjoy. Such is the path that a particular country in Europe took in the 1930's (not naming any names here). So am I wrong in saying that we need more then symbolic measures to stop this escalation of the war?

1/17/2007 4:04:38 PM

they can always stop funding like with vietnam

1/17/2007 4:07:02 PM

but that would require a binding resolution, no?

1/17/2007 4:34:05 PM

Technically the Executive branch is always in consensus.

Also, your assertion that having the constitutionally mandated executive branch causes abuses of power that ought to be stopped makes me

We ought not be fucking with the framework. (Overturn the 17th Amendment!!)

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 5:16 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2007 5:15:56 PM