THE DAILY BS: HOW MUCH CAN YOU HANDLE?

SPARE ME THE BS (I’ve got things to do)

• Chuck Schumer declares Democrats intend to end Trump’s war with Iran.
• He’s pointing to Congress’s power over military spending as the way to do it.
• Some Republicans have already supported measures challenging the war.

LAY IT ON ME (I’ve got time)

Chuck Schumer has apparently decided that the quickest way to stop President Donald Trump’s war with Iran is to go after the money.

And unlike most of Washington’s political threats, this one comes with an actual constitutional power attached.

The New York Democrat declared Wednesday that his party intends to end the Iran war, pointing directly to Congress’s authority over federal spending as a way to force the administration’s hand.

That’s a rather substantial announcement. We’re not talking about another strongly worded letter, a television interview demanding accountability or one of those congressional resolutions that produces plenty of speeches and precious little action.

Schumer is talking about using the federal government’s checkbook.

Congress controls appropriations. Presidents command the armed forces, but Congress decides how federal money is spent. And when lawmakers disagree with a president’s military operations, that power can become a very unpleasant complication for the commander in chief.

The trouble for Trump is that Schumer may not have to rely entirely on Democrats.

Some Republicans have already joined efforts to restrict or end American involvement in the Iran conflict.

In June, Congress adopted a largely symbolic measure calling for the cessation of hostilities. In September, the House approved another war-related measure with support from seven Republicans.

Those votes didn’t end the fighting. But they demonstrated that opposition to the administration’s Iran policy isn’t confined to one party.

Now Schumer believes he has a more powerful opportunity.

There is, however, a rather inconvenient detail for anybody expecting Congress to simply flip a switch and shut down an overseas military operation.

Ending a war through legislation is not quite the same thing as canceling a federal grant.

A president can veto legislation. Military operations may draw on money already appropriated. Congress can attempt to restrict future funding, establish conditions or demand reports, but the precise language of those measures matters enormously.

And there are obvious complications when American service members are already deployed and conducting operations.

Cutting off funding for military activities raises difficult questions about what happens to the troops, their protection, their supplies and the operations needed to bring them home safely.

It’s one thing to declare that the war should end. It’s another to produce legislation that actually accomplishes that objective without creating additional dangers for the people wearing the uniform.

Schumer’s argument is that Congress must exercise its constitutional authority when a president continues military action without sufficient public consent.

The White House has defended its military operations against Iran, and Trump has maintained that his administration is pursuing American security interests.

That leaves a potentially explosive confrontation over who gets to decide how long the United States remains involved in the conflict and how much the country spends pursuing it.

For those who remember the endless congressional debates over Iraq and Afghanistan, the arguments may sound familiar. Republicans and Democrats have both complained about presidential war powers when the other party occupied the Oval Office.

Funny how the Constitution becomes especially fascinating when somebody else is commander in chief.

There’s also a distinction worth watching between genuine congressional oversight and attempts to score political points.

If lawmakers want to end American military involvement, voters are entitled to know exactly what they propose, how they intend to accomplish it and what happens to American forces in the meantime.

Schumer has now made a very public promise.

The next test is whether he can produce a workable plan, persuade enough lawmakers to support it and confront the enormous practical consequences that come with trying to end an ongoing war.

Because in Washington, promising to stop a war is relatively easy.

The hard part is figuring out what happens when the people doing the fighting are still there.

DBS WIRE SOURCES (I have all day)

• Wall Street Journal — Schumer: Democrats will end Iran war
• New York Post — Schumer promises legislative resistance as Jeffries discusses cooperation
• Foreign Policy — Where congressional Democrats can challenge Trump’s foreign policy
• Senate Democratic Caucus — Schumer’s earlier remarks on the Iran war