Dems to sue Bush over war in Iraq

[ojibweindian]

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030213-093506-8792r

Suit questions Bush's war powers
From the National Desk
Published 2/13/2003 9:48 AM
View printer-friendly version


BOSTON, Feb. 13 (UPI) -- A lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston Thursday seeks to prevent President Bush from going to war against Iraq without congressional approval.

A coalition including six House members, several U.S. soldiers and parents of military personnel claims only Congress has that power under the Constitution.

"A war against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war will be illegal and unconstitutional," said John Bonifaz, the plaintiffs' lead attorney. "It is time for the courts to intervene."

The representatives joining the suit, all Democrats, are John Conyers of Michigan, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, James McDermott of Washington, Jose Serrano of New York, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois.

The plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction against the president and for a hearing on their request that Bush be barred from launching a military invasion against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.

The lawsuit cites Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which reads: "Congress shall have power... (to) declare war."

The suit argues the resolution on Iraq that Congress passed in October did not declare war and unlawfully ceded the decision to Bush.

The suit contends the framers of the Constitution sought to ensure that U.S. presidents would not have the power of European monarchs of the past to wage war.

"The Founding Fathers did not establish an imperial presidency with war-making power," Conyers said. "The Constitution clearly reserves that for Congress."

"The president is not a king," said Charles Richardson, a plaintiff whose Marine son is stationed in the Persian Gulf.

"If he wants to launch a military invasion against Iraq, he must first seek a declaration of war from the United States Congress. Our Constitution demands nothing less," Richardson said.

Richardson and two other plaintiffs -- Nancy Lessin and Jeffrey McKenzie -- are co-founders of Military Families Speak Out, an organization of people opposed to war against Iraq and who have family in the military.

"A full and complete congressional discussion of the issues and all options must precede any move towards war," Lessin said, "because of the irreparable harm that would result."



Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

 

[Blackcloud6]

This is interesting. Strictly constitutionally speaking, the plantiffs may have a point. I think it would be good to have a real declaration of war passed by congress against Iraq.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

The Democrats way of ruling America...

They either pass laws or file lawsuits to get their way.

It's bogus and political. There hasn't been a declared war since December, 1941. Way too many precedents of President's using the military without declarations of war.

 

[CMichael]

Congress may have the right to declare war but they don't have the right to make war.

 

[Kaylee]

There hasn't been a declared war since December, 1941. Way too many precedents of President's using the military without declarations of war.

Which doesn't make it right. There's way too many precendents of gun control to... that doesn't make them Constitutional either.

Personally, I think they're right on in this. We DONT want the President to have warmaking powers. It IS Congress's job to declare war. None of this sneaking around by passing a resolution that says "the President can use the military anytime he feels like it."

I am for the Constitution, whether it benefits "my side" at the moment or not. If Bush keeps this power, the next Clinton will have it to. I dunno about y'all, but I find the idea of an American Ceasar scary, no matter his political stripes.

-K

 

[DeltaElite]

Worthless Democrats.
Oh wait, that's redundant.

What's the difference between a Democrat and a speed bump?
A speed bump serves a purpose.

 

[moa]

I wonder if US membership obligations and protocols within the United Nations charter trumps Congressional power to have sole authority to declare war? From what I can see, the UN has not "declared" war, but will only possibly authorize the use of force such as in the Korean War, a UN "police action".

Anybody have any insight into this?

 

[Mike Irwin]

Similar lawsuits didn't work during Vietnam or in 1991...

 

[Jack T.]

Congress does have the power to declare war, but according to the War Powers Act of 1973, the President can deploy troops for up to 60 days without any such declaration.

And, as others have said, there hasn't been a declared war since 1941. If the Democrats want precedent, Lyndon Johnson springs readily to mind.

 

[DaveB]

And, as others have said, there hasn't been a declared war since 1941.

That doesn't make it right. Congress is the only constitutional entity with the legal power to declare war. The fact that they haven't done so since 1941 is a reflection of their own cowardice.

If the USA is to commit troops to battle, the congress must have authorized it beforehand (with obvious exceptions for self defense and surprise attack). If a war is worth fighting, congress must authorize it, or not. If not, there is no way for a President to legally go it alone - it's unconstitutional.

Does any of this mean anything in practical terms?

Nah.

What it should mean is that somebody needs to be impeached.

db

 

[Felonious Monk]

What it should mean is that somebody needs to be impeached.

Somebody WAS. Klinton, IIRC. Then, the Dem controlled congress saved his assets from having to step down. So she and her husband could then stay on long enough to loot, pillage, and vandalize the White House on their way home to New Jack City. :banghead:

 

[Hkmp5sd]

The fact that they haven't done so since 1941 is a reflection of their own cowardice.

That is the whole problem. They use the vote (or lack thereof) to prevent the president from doing what needs to be done.

Of course, there is a far simpler way for them to prevent the president from starting a war than using a lawsuit. If they REALLY believe that Bush is starting a war in violation of the Constitution, it is their DUTY to impeach and remove him from office.

Instead of hiding behind lawyers and judges, why don't they stand up and take the fight personally to the President? The answer has been mentioned. Cowardice.

 

[Viking6]

The term usual suspects comes to mind.

 

[moa]

Well, the President has Congressional approval to wage war already from the Congress. No true declaration of war per se, but still approval.

Congress can stop the President anytime from making war. They just tie up the funding, a power that only the Congress has.

In the case of the Klinton impeachment, the Republican control Congress impeached Klinton.

The Republican controlled Senate conducted a trial of the impeachment, and between the Democratic Senators and Republican renegades (Arlen Spector, Rep. PA. comes to mind), there was not enough votes to remove Klinton from office.

Scuttlebutt is that the Dems worked out a deal with Trent Lott who was then Senate majority leader.

 

[Blackhawk]

Idiots.

But if they win, do I get to collect $10k for every day of military service in combat?

Better yet, if they lose can I sue THEM for those reparations since THEY were the ones authorizing the Vietnam War by funding it, etc?

 

[DaveB]

Well, the President has Congressional approval to wage war already from the Congress. No true declaration of war per se, but still approval.

Word Games - no offense intended to you, moa, but this is bs. The Constitution explicitly specifies who can do what. No amount of clever lawyer/politicial gibberish changes that.

db

 

[jmbg29]

Which doesn't make it right. There's way too many precendents of gun control to... that doesn't make them Constitutional either.

Apples and Oranges.

{Excert from Article I Section 8 U.S. Constitution}To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;...etc.

The constitution specifically grants them the power to:

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

See: http://www.luminet.net/~tgort/wpa.htm

The War Powers Act. Which is how the congress in 1973 chose to deal with "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" A power authorized to them in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

The second amendment OTOH says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please note that the 2nd Amendment prohibits further action (with regard to the bearing of arms by the people) by Congess other than to revert to the use of the amendment process.

To review; Article I Section 8 charges the Congress with the duty of creating laws to declare war, and to manage the propagation of our armed forces and their equipment. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the congress may not develop distinct legislation to that effect, rather, it specifically charges them with that duty.

Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits the U.S. government from infringing on the right of "the people to keep and bear arms". BTW for all you liberal lurkers out there, "the people" in the 2nd A are the self-same "people" in Articles I, II, IV, IX and X. As well as the "people" that may be inferred in III, V, VI, VII, and VIII.

The Congress authorized war on Iraq 12 years ago under the War Powers Act. Hostilities with Iraq ceased just a few months afterward. That cessation was conditional. The Iraqis, having lost the war, and having agreed to the conditions, never fulfilled them. Ergo, we are back at war with them under the initial authorization. In addition to that authorization, the Congress in September '01 subsequently authorized the POTUS (again under the War Powers Act) to effect war upon certain nebulous enemies that conspired to, and then ATTACKED THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES! (for those of you that may have forgotten)

As such, we are at war. Don't like it? Tough!

Take it up with your congressrat and or slumator, and convince them to create laws that you agree with.

 

[Blackcloud6]

Well I guess if you can pass legislation that diesn't declare war but authorizes some sort of war like action then its probably OK to pass legilations that doesn't speficially infringe on the right to own firearms but authorizes infringemet like measures.

Sorry jmbg29 but your post sounds like lawyer word twisting to me. The authorization to regulate the military is just to set up the military's regulations, not send it to combat.

 

[Bob Locke]

I'm sort of surprised at some of these responses, particularly from this crowd.

I thought this was a group that wants the Constitution adhered to. ALL of it, as written.

This selective reading to suit our own particular viewpoint(s) is very much a two-edged sword, no?

 

[Dannyboy]

The suit argues the resolution on Iraq that Congress passed in October did not declare war and unlawfully ceded the decision to Bush.

If Congress voted and passed the resolution, wouldn't that mean that they LAWFULLY gave the decision making power to the President?

 

[jmbg29]

U.S. Constitution Article I

Section 8 [Scope of Legislative Power] (in it's entirety)

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;


To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;


To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;


To establish post offices and post roads;


To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;


To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;


To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;


To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


To provide and maintain a navy;


To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And


To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.(emphasis added)

Sorry jmbg29 but your post sounds like lawyer word twisting to me. The authorization to regulate the military is just to set up the military's regulations, not send it to combat.

I'm not a lawyer; I'm just a simple carpenter with the ability to read and comprehend English.

Please note that "To declare war" precedes "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof" and is therefore covered by the "foregoing powers" clause.

Try reading the constitution sometime. Ignorance may very well be bliss, but it is still ignorance.

While you are at it, look up the meaning of the word "infringe" and perhaps discover why "Well I guess if you can pass legislation that diesn't declare war but authorizes some sort of war like action then its probably OK to pass legilations that doesn't speficially infringe on the right to own firearms but authorizes infringemet like measures." is laughably illogical.

P.S. Watch it with the lawyer thing. Them's fightin' words.

 

[jmbg29]

ALL of it, as written

This selective reading to suit our own particular viewpoint(s) is very much a two-edged sword, no?

Yeah. Kind of makes you think, huh?

 

[CMichael]

And as you can see Congress has the right to declare war not make war.

 

[Bob Locke]

And as you can see Congress has the right to declare war not make war.

Correct. Just as the President is charged with leading any war effort, not starting it.

jmbg29,

All I want anyone to do is think (including myself). We may well draw differing conclusions, but if we never take the time to establish a justification for those conclusions that we are able to defend logically, then I'd say little to no thought has been given.

Personally, I find the War Powers Act to be totally un-Constitutional. It is one thing for a President to take immediate defensive actions in the wake of an attack on this country. It is another matter entirely to watch the buildup and deployment of troops in a clearly offensive manner.

There was never a declaration of war made against Iraq a dozen years ago, and there has not (yet) been one in the current instance, so arguing that this is a "continuation of hostilities" doesn't really fly with me as there was never any Congressional declaration for hostitiliy in the first place.

And as for our actions being done under the blanket of U.N. sanctions, well, do we really even need to get into that?

 

[jmbg29]

Personally, I find the War Powers Act to be totally un-Constitutional.

What you find personally is of no consequence to me. Your position is simply not supported by the document - The Constitution - that you invoke. Period.

Again:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.(emphasis added)

:banghead: