Feingold says it's binding. The AP calls it a "nonbinding timeline."
Feingold's right, isn't he? What's the deal here?
Well, its not nonbinding in the sense that the Warner-Levin resolution was nonbinding - a sense of Congress in the form of a concurrent resolution (which isn't legislation, because it's not signed by the prez).
But it is legislation.
Two things:
There's no provision saying that no funds can be used for activities breaching the timetable - there's no power of the purse sanction - not explicitly, at least.
And there's the question how could the timetable be enforced?
There are issues like standing, political question and the like, which are all figleaves for the courts to keep out of fights between Congress and the prez.
The endgame needs much more attention.
Where is the withdrawal language in the supplemental? I can't even find it.
Go here, get the printer-friendly, and it's §1315. (That's the text of the Senate substitute (as reported by Byrd's committee) which has already been passed.)
It looks like basically S J Res 9, plus a list of sense of Congress benchmarks inserted for the benefit of Nelson of NE.
Thanks.
My reaction is that it is unenforceable in a legal sense, but enforceable in a political sense, which is to say that it's clear enough to be unsignable.
