No, Pelosi could not end the war on her own. She tried - the first funding bill the House passed in 07 mandated a troop withdrawal - and failed. Defunding the war will not end it. It will just defund it. So long as he remains Commmander in Chief, Bush is, unfortunately, the only one with the power to end the war. And if you think he will withdraw the troops just because Congress has cut off funding, I have a bridge in Arizona that you may be interested in purchasing.

Accept it or not, but those are the facts. Pelosi is Speaker of the House, not Commander in Chief. Powerful as she may be, the army is not her domain. Once war is declared - and Pelosi voted against this war - the President calls the shots. If you refuse to accept this, than you are refusing to accept the Constitution.

AKA Smith's complaints concerning FISA are a different matter altogether. That bill was, in fact, an uconstitutional travesty, and she is culpable for voting for it. Barack Obama is equally culpable on that front.

According to the Constitution, Congress has the power "To declare War, (and) grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal." If I am not mistaken, an authorization for use of force is a letter of Marque and Reprisal.

"Also, Pelosi and Reid could have easily said "We will not fund the war" and the war would have ended."

Wrong. The war would not have ended. There just wouldn't be any money available for it. The war will not end until the troops are withdrawn, and Bush, as Commander in Chief, has the authority - barring an act of Congress directing him otherwise - to keep them there as long has he wants to, regardless whether or not he actually has the ways and means to support them. Like I said to TonyDavisNelson, if you think Bush will give in and withdraw the troops just because funding has been cut off, I have a bridge in Arizona that you may be interested in.

The article that you link to indicates that the quotation you cite is just one somewhat controversial opinion on the subject, and that other constitutional law scholars indicate that the letters of marque and reprisal clause was intended to require the President to get Congressional authorization before undertaking limited war-like action outside of the United States. However, point taken. Letters of marque and reprisal are not declarations of war. It seems the framers didn't anticipate such a letter of marque and reprisal growing into an undeclared war - this isn't the first time we've faced this issue - and didn't provide any Constitutional mechanism to check against that.

"I don't agree with the premise that we could continue to run a war without money -- it would prove politically unpalatable -- but as you said, an "act of Congress directing him to do otherwise" would have resolved that issue. And again, that falls well within the realm of things Reid and Pelosi could have accomplished had they the political will to do so."

(1) I don't want to play politics with the lives of our soldiers. You are proposing here, essentially, that we withdraw funding from the war effort, putting the troops at risk for being left high and dry in a war zone, just so that we can blame Bush for the situation, and take advantage of the fact that it is "politically unpalatable." Bush clearly doesn't care about the political unpalatability of this war. His ego is thoroughly invested in it, and he will not cry uncle. Eventually, the Democrats will have to. It will just be a matter of how many Humvees break down, how many soldiers to go without needed supplies and equipment, and ultimately, how many soldiers possbly die, until the inevitable cry of uncle happens. Do you really want to go down that road?

(2) Reid and Pelosi DID get a bill passed mandating troop withdrawal. The mandate was included with the first war funding bill that the Democrats passed. It was vetoed, and they were unable to override the veto.

See (1) in my response to Chris7Crows above.

(1) The military is not authorized to run up a debt. They are only allowed to spend what they are authorized by Congress to spend. This is why power of the purse strings is usually cited as a check against Presidential power on this issue. Unfortunately, checks and balances only work if both sides are behaving rationally, or with political self interest in mind. I have seen no reason to believe that Bush will behave accordingly. The man is as vain, venal, and self absorbed as they come.

(2)The 60 vote requirement is mentioned in the Constitution. What they are talking about when they invoke 60 votes is the amount of votes the Constitution requires to override a Presidential veto.

(3) The fight over judicial filibusters has little to do with this issue, as the problem here is not a filibuster, but a veto.