Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Decision To Throw Out Antiwar Lawsuit Upheld
WSBTV.com ^ | March, 13, 2003 | ?

Posted on 03/13/2003 7:58:16 PM PST by Hadean

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a judge's decision to throw out a lawsuit challenging President George W. Bush's authority to attack Iraq, dismissing arguments that Congress has unconstitutionally left the decision to Bush.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it had no business intervening without clear conflict between the legislative and executive branches.

The court did not address the plaintiffs' argument that a congressional resolution authorized war with Iraq only with United Nations approval, saying the claim could not be evaluated because war has not started.

Last month, six Democratic congressmen, three unnamed servicemen and their families filed suit alleging that although Congress authorized a war with Iraq in an October resolution, it has not specifically declared war as required by the Constitution. The lawsuit contends Congress improperly gave Bush the authority to declare war.

Plaintiffs' attorney John Bonifaz said he would file for a rehearing of the case before the appeals court if the U.N. denies authorization and Bush indicates he will use military force against Iraq anyway.

"This case is very much alive," Bonifaz said.

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately comment on the decision.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; court; protest; war

1 posted on 03/13/2003 7:58:17 PM PST by Hadean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hadean
BUMP...
2 posted on 03/13/2003 8:00:13 PM PST by tubebender (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hadean
Plaintiff's attorney actually believes that if the president does not first obtain permission from the U.N., he's breaking the law?
3 posted on 03/13/2003 8:02:48 PM PST by lainie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hadean
His argument is that Congress' resolution was made contingent upon UN approval. I don't know if that's true or not.
4 posted on 03/13/2003 8:04:12 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hadean
"This case is very much alive," Bonifaz said.

He's right. They'll file a thousand appeals, and when those fail, they'll file a new suit, and so on. There are no costs involved, no penalties for such frivolities (a shyster penalizing another shyster? Perish the thought!) and they get free publicity and their mugs on the idiot box screens courtesy of the willing mediots.

5 posted on 03/13/2003 8:05:17 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Someone left the cake out in the rain I dont think that I can take it coz it took so long to bake it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hadean; lainie
Sorry! I meant to post that to lainie. Lainie, Post 4 was supposed to be addressed to you.
6 posted on 03/13/2003 8:05:28 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hadean
The court did not address the plaintiffs' argument that a congressional resolution authorized war with Iraq only with United Nations approval, saying the claim could not be evaluated because war has not started.

Well, let's check the actual text...

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

  1. AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
    1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
    2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
  2. PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
    1. reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
    2. acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

I don't see a damn thing that REQUIRES a UN resolution to be passed BEFORE going to war.

7 posted on 03/13/2003 8:06:56 PM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
His argument is that Congress' resolution was made contingent upon UN approval. I don't know if that's true or not.

His argument is bogus.

8 posted on 03/13/2003 8:09:45 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hadean
Published Opinion

No. 03-1266

JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, JANE DOE I, SUSAN E. SCHUMANN, CHARLES RICHARDSON, NANCY LESSIN, JEFFREY MCKENZIE, JOHN CONYERS, DENNIS KUCINICH, JESSE JACKSON, JR., SHEILA JACKSON LEE, JIM MCDERMOTT, JOSÉ E. SERRANO, SALLY WRIGHT, DEBORAH REGAL, ALICE COPELAND BROWN, JERRYE BARRE, JAMES STEPHEN CLEGHORN, LAURA JOHNSON MANIS, SHIRLEY H. YOUNG, JULIAN DELGAUDIO, ROSE DELGAUDIO, DANNY K. DAVIS, MAURICE D. HINCHEY, CAROLYN KILPATRICK, PETE STARK, DIANE WATSON, LYNN C. WOOLSEY,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President,
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense,

Defendants, Appellees.

9 posted on 03/13/2003 8:09:58 PM PST by nicmarlo (** UNDER GOD **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Poohbah cleared that up for us.
10 posted on 03/13/2003 8:10:19 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; inquest
See post #7...lays it all out.
11 posted on 03/13/2003 8:10:29 PM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Sorry, didn't see that you had posted the authorization.
12 posted on 03/13/2003 8:10:50 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hadean
Who were the six demorats?
13 posted on 03/13/2003 8:11:34 PM PST by lizma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; inquest
I think we kinda dogpiled the thread...
14 posted on 03/13/2003 8:11:45 PM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"

I think this just about covers it, for the fine print.

But we aren't going in because of the U.N., but our own security.
15 posted on 03/13/2003 8:14:09 PM PST by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lizma
Who were the six demorats?

Trying to find out...
16 posted on 03/13/2003 8:16:27 PM PST by Hadean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: edwin hubble
I think this just about covers it, for the fine print.

Nope. There's about a dozen UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq that Bush can invoke enforcement of.

But we aren't going in because of the U.N., but our own security.

True enough, and that IS listed as a reason for going in clause 1.

17 posted on 03/13/2003 8:18:24 PM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hadean; lizma
see my post #9....it list all the Plaintiff's names, which include, of course, the Rats (obviously, Jesse Jackass Jr is! : )
18 posted on 03/13/2003 8:18:57 PM PST by nicmarlo (** UNDER GOD **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hadean; lizma
Try this from the plaintiff's list:

JOHN CONYERS, DENNIS KUCINICH, JESSE JACKSON, JR., SHEILA JACKSON LEE, JIM MCDERMOTT, JOSÉ E. SERRANO

And Sheila Jackson Lee is also suing to demand that the US bring back the flag Neil Armstrong left on Mars :o)
19 posted on 03/13/2003 8:20:01 PM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Beat me to it. Here it is with relative states:

John Conyers of Michigan
Dennis Kucinich of Ohio
James McDermott of Washington
Jose Serrano of New York
Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas
Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois.
20 posted on 03/13/2003 8:26:05 PM PST by Hadean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hadean
The court did not address the plaintiffs' argument that a congressional resolution authorized war with Iraq only with United Nations approval . . .

. . . from CBSnews.com

The Congressional vote endorsing the resolution on Iraq is seen as a solid endorsement of Mr. Bush's insistence that he will work with the United Nations if possible, or alone if necessary, to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction.

House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri is one of the authors of the resolution.

"The issue is how to best protect America. And I believe this resolution does that," says Gephardt.

The bipartisan agreement gives the president most of the powers he asked for, allowing him to act without going through the United Nations. But in a concession to Democratic concerns, it encourages him to exhaust all diplomatic means first and requires he report to Congress every 60 days if he does take action.

Translation: the President is doing exactly what the Congress wanted him to do, as reported by CBS. But if one considers the names of some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, it is easy to understand why they did not understand this fact: they are stupid as hell! Anyone with half-a-brain knows they are stupid as hell!

21 posted on 03/13/2003 8:26:22 PM PST by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The Communist Caucus, figures.

LOL on Sheila! I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
22 posted on 03/13/2003 8:27:19 PM PST by lizma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
I'm glad to see it was killed in Boston, of all places.
23 posted on 03/13/2003 8:28:21 PM PST by Hadean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I don't see a damn thing that REQUIRES a UN resolution to be passed BEFORE going to war.

It must be somewhere in the emanations of the penumbra of the law, which requires special goggles to make visible.

24 posted on 03/13/2003 8:34:56 PM PST by 300winmag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Sorry pal - text be damned - NOTHING happens until Cameroon and Guinea have their say. Take this back now! Plus we've got a call into Haiti... ;)
25 posted on 03/13/2003 8:37:25 PM PST by ysoitanly (SCREW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, JANE DOE I

Say what? I always knew dead democrats could vote, but now their filing lawsuits?

I guess it's no surprise if you consider their last presidential candidate.


26 posted on 03/13/2003 8:38:20 PM PST by lizma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
sorry about my comment line that said 'SCREW' for so long - I just noticed it and couldn't believe it! I certainly didn't want it there and I think I got mad one night at a reply and hit the 'tab' key one too many times when I was starting a sentence with that word and it ended up in the wrong box. Been removed!
27 posted on 03/13/2003 8:41:03 PM PST by ysoitanly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: lizma
lol!
28 posted on 03/13/2003 8:57:28 PM PST by nicmarlo (** UNDER GOD **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Hadean
Here's a list of members of the "Progressive Caucus:" a/k/a Socialists

and here's a link to the 59 Socialists in Congress thread:

59 Socialists in Congress – 2002

This people are the plaintiffs and are current members of the Progressive Caucus, a front name, IMHO, for the Democratic Socialists of America:

Dennis Kucinich, CO-CHAIR, OHIO
Lynn Woolsey, VICE-CHAIR, CALIFORNIA
Jesse Jackson, Jr, OFFICER, ILLINOIS
John Conyers, MEMBER, MICHIGAN
Jim McDermott, MEMBER, WASHINGTON
Jose Serrano, MEMBER, NEW YORK
Sheila Jackson-Lee, MEMBER, TEXAS

29 posted on 03/13/2003 9:19:45 PM PST by nicmarlo (** UNDER GOD **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hadean
FYI, at the bottom of the Order (see my post #9, with link), there's a list of Representatives:

1. The military personnel and some of the parents are proceeding under pseudonyms, pursuant to an order by the district court that is not before us. <> The members of the House of Representatives are John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Sheila Jackson Lee, Jim McDermott, José E. Serrano, Danny K. Davis, Maurice D. Hinchey, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Pete Stark, Diane Watson, and Lynn C. Woolsey. We also acknowledge the assistance provided by amicus curiae on behalf of the plaintiffs.

30 posted on 03/13/2003 9:38:42 PM PST by nicmarlo (** UNDER GOD **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
I'm checking that website out now. I try to stay away from 'conspiracy' kind of stuff, but that site reads like the Manifesto itself. I wouldn't doubt that it's a front either. Thanks for the info.
31 posted on 03/13/2003 9:40:59 PM PST by Hadean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
It's funny what you find. I read the Order you linked up to. In it, there's mention of the basis of the plaintiff argument referring to Ange v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. at 515. Did a search, and it led to this:

http://www.aclj.org/news/nf_010917_breakdown_expanded.asp

In this memorandum, it starts going into the North Atlantic Treaty. It then goes into Article 5, the "Mutual Defense Clause". Sept. 11 triggered this article, and the 19 member nations of the treaty agreed to invoke the Treaty's mutual defense clause.

The basis of the prosecution on the recent suit seemed to aim not only at the constitutional angle, but also at the sovereign right of the US to defend itself.
32 posted on 03/13/2003 10:18:55 PM PST by Hadean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hadean
Sure. Go ahead and gum up the works so more Americans die. What idiots.
33 posted on 03/13/2003 10:21:57 PM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hadean
Hadean.....I'm not much for conspiracy theories, either; however, the aims of the socialist democrats are too clear....I'm putting together some info on these people.....and I'll post it later tonight (I hope) when I'm done.....that's what I was doing last night....till the wee hours.....I think it's important to see who the "enemies within" are.
34 posted on 03/14/2003 4:36:09 AM PST by nicmarlo (** UNDER GOD **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
I look foward to reading it.
35 posted on 03/14/2003 7:12:31 AM PST by Hadean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hadean
I'm still putting it together. There's a lot of work/time necessary. I'm about halfway through.....and because there's so much info., I'm almost thinking it might be better to have its own thread, with links to this site, and search around for possibly some other threads on these folks....I've found out some interesting info. regarding some of them that I bet many don't remember or know. In any event, it doesn't look like I'll be done for at least a few days.....
36 posted on 03/16/2003 5:29:14 AM PST by nicmarlo (** UNDER GOD **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson