“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.

Continue reading this article …