Supreme Court Possible Veto Actor in Iraq Resolution

The article describes Senators Joe Biden (D-DE) and Carl Levin (D-MI)’s plan for limiting American troop involvement in Iraq. However, the provisions of the bill, if enacted, would infringe upon the Commander-in-Chief’s prerogative to set war strategy, as Congress’ constitutional role in war is to declare it (in the Senate) and to fund it (in the House). The current conservative composition of the Supreme Court is more likely to rule in favor of greater presidential authority over foreign policy. The political reality that the House will have to continue funding war equipment or be alienated from voters (at least until this goes on for another year or so, at which point the majority of the American public might not argue much against de-funding troops, but the Pentagon would still be able to dip into its overdraft funds and fund itself as an executive agency to deploy troops, putting the ball back into the House to fund the troops who the Pentagon continues to send). Most of the 29 Republicans oppose the bill and consequently are with the status quo (presidential position), which the Supreme Court approximates on this issues. Hence, any attempt this quarter to restrict the activities of the troops will ultimately lose despite the Democratic majority due to a range of disagreements about what specific provisions should and should not be preventing a potential override of a presidential veto, with the Supreme Court primed to be a veto actor given the language of the bill.