Congrès versus GW : en avant pour les extrêmes

La crise institutionnelle entre le Congrès et GW Bush à propos de l’Irak semble devoir évoluer vers une crise constitutionnelle grave, si certains projets se concrétisent. La situation se tend chaque jour un peu plus.

• Désormais, l’opposition à GW est bipartisane. Le sénateur républicain Chuck Hagel est devenu “co-sponsor” de la résolution non-contraignante présentée au Sénat, qui condamne l’envoi de troupes supplémentaires en Irak. Interviewé par CNN (relayé par “RAW Story”), Hagel a eu des mots très durs : Hagel «sought 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.»

• Certains sénateurs démocrates commencent à réclamer des mesures plus dures que la résolution non-contraignante en train d’être discutée. C’est le cas de Clinton (Hillary), qui sent le vent tourner et se découvre de plus en plus une adversaire de la guerre en Irak. C’est le cas du sénateur Dodd, du Connecticut, qui veut présenter une résolution interdisant le président d’augmenter désormais les forces US en Irak sans autorisation du Congrès. Cette initiative apparaît comme particulièrement déstabilisante (selon l’International Herald Tribune), et effectivement porteuse d’un conflit constitutionnel potentiel.

«Dodd'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.”

(…)

«The idea of a congressionally mandated troop cap for Iraq could face constitutional questions.

»Some 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.

»“The 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.”

»Snow, 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.”

»But 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.”

»The 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.»

Mis en ligne le 18 janvier 2007 à 10H16