Though I still suggest that appropriate charges be brought against the sponsors of the amendment and those who voted for it.

A proposal to cut off money for military operations in Iraq fell far short in the Senate this afternoon, a day after Democrats lost their best chance of changing the course of the war.

Legislation sponsored by Senators Russell D. Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who has been one of the fiercest critics of the Bush administration’s war policy, and Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, received only 28 “yes” votes, 32 fewer than needed to cut off a Republican filibuster.

“A majority of the House and a majority of the Senate want to change the direction of the war in Iraq,” Mr. Reid said in a meeting with reporters beforehand. “We have voted accordingly on more than one occasion, in fact on many occasions. But the House having done their job, they come to the Senate and the Senate Republicans, the vast majority of them will not allow us to change the direction of the war in Iraq.”

The vote on the Feingold-Reid measure was entirely expected; in May, the Senate rejected a similar proposal by the two lawmakers by a similar margin.

However Reid's attempt to abandon American troops in the field of battle can only be deemed to b giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war, not "chang[ing] the direction of the war in Iraq."

I reiterate yesterday's observation.

I think that sponsoring of such legislation could legitimately be considered a violation of Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution, and the provisions of Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 would seem to allow charges to be brought against Reid and Feingold for that violation, as that particular offense is specifically exempted from the immunity of legislators under the "Speech or Debate" clause.

Reid, Feingold, and those who voted in favor of the amendment ought to be charged and tried immediately.