“I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider. The decider is a shared and joint responsibility.”

So said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) during a hearing on Congress’ war powers amid an increasingly harsh debate over Iraq war policy.

The respected moderate’s words certainly do not fall upon deaf ears, as the question of whether to use its power over the government’s checkbook to force an end to the Iraq war, and under what circumstances, lingers among members of Congress’ newly empowered Democratic majority.

No one challenges the concept of Congress stopping a war by canceling funds. In fact, Vice President Dick Cheney challenged Congress to put some weight behind its objections to George W. Bush’s plan to put 21,500 more troops in Iraq.

Underlying Cheney’s dare is the consensus understanding that such a drastic move is doubtful because it is fraught with political peril. But there are other legislative options to force the war’s end, say majority Democrats and even some of Bush’s traditional Republican allies.

Alternatives range from capping the number of troops permitted in Iraq to cutting off funding for troop deployments beyond a certain date or setting an end date for the war.

“The Constitution makes Congress a coequal branch of government. It’s time we start acting like it,” said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who presided over a hearing Tuesday on Congress’ war powers.

He is pushing legislation to end the war by eventually prohibiting funding for the deployment of troops to Iraq - a proposal, like others designed to force an end to U.S. involvement in the bloody conflict - is far from having enough support even to come up for a vote on the Senate floor.

Closer to that threshold is a non-binding resolution declaring that Bush’s proposal to send 21,500 more troops to Baghdad and Anbar province is “not in the national interest.”

The Senate could take up that measure early next month. But some senators, complaining that the resolution is symbolic, are forwarding tougher bills.

“Read the Constitution,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) told her colleagues last week. “The Congress has the power to declare war. And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts.”

Congress used its war powers in the past to cut off or put conditions on funding for the Vietnam war and conflicts in Cambodia, Somalia and Bosnia. Boxer is pushing a bill that would call for troops to come home within 180 days.

Under the Constitution, lawmakers have the ability to declare war and fund military operations, while the president has control of military forces.

But remember, presidents can veto legislation, and Bush - despite what he feels about not needing Congress’ approval to continue the war as he sees fit - likely has enough support in Congress on Iraq to withstand any veto override attempts.

Ah, checks and balances.