President's Veto Includes Warning to Congress

May 2, 2007 — -- President Bush did more than veto the war-funding bill sent to him by Congress. His formal veto message to the House today included an unusual addendum positing a provocative argument: that there is essentially nothing Congress can do to influence war policy.

After stating his objection to setting "an arbitrary date for beginning the withdrawal of American troops without regard to conditions on the ground," the president went on to say that the bill violates the Constitution by requiring a troop withdrawal to begin by a certain date.

"This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of the operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency by the Constitution, including as commander in chief of the armed forces," Bush wrote in his veto statement.

The statement represents the president's most explicit questioning of Congress' power to shape war policies. In previous public statements, he has suggested that while he disagrees with the direction congressional Democrats are pushing for, he recognizes Congress' right to have a voice in the conduct of the war.

Neal K. Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who has written extensively on presidential powers, called the president's statement an endorsement of a "ludicrous argument" that seems designed to scare Congress away from trying to influence the path of the war.

Read literally, Katyal said, the president is saying that Congress has only two choices for influencing a war: cutting off funding for troops or staying out of the president's way.

"It's an outlandish, almost caricatured view of the commander in chief's power, to suggest that Congress can't make military policy at all," Katyal said. "Why would the framers insist on having only this one silly way for Congress to make military policy?"

But David B. Rivkin Jr., a former Justice Department official in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, said the president's argument has merit. Though case law surrounding wartime powers is murky, Rivkin said the Constitution gives the president near-complete discretion in conducting military operations.

"It would be different if Democrats were prepared to say, 'This war is lost, and therefore we're going to cut off funds for it,'" he said.

Including the statement in the veto message represents an effort by the White House to lay the groundwork for a future clash, perhaps this fall when Congress takes up its annual appropriations bills for the military and other areas of spending, Rivkin said.

If Congress tries to impose limitations on how the war is conducted then, the president would probably include a "signing statement" formally saying that he will not necessarily comply with those limitations, Rivkin said.

"They're laying down markers for the battles to come," he said. "This is all about the next fight."