posted on February 24, 2003 01:25:35 PM new"However, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled Monday that the court did not have jurisdiction to issue an injunction against Bush."
"Tauro said the lawsuit engaged "political questions in the legal sense that are beyond the jurisdiction of the court."
That is why the Judge did not rule in the case. Furthermore, when the judge did his own informal analysis, he states, "Case law makes clear that the Congress does not have the exclusive right to determine whether or not the United States engages in war." by that he means that there is a difference between what the United States Constitution specifically and unequivocally states, and what has been the practice.
The judge's determination is not final, like the one when Bush's father went after war. I think that he just did not feel qualified to rule on it. If the plaintiffs are not done with their suit, I imagine that it will resurface in a higher court.
posted on February 24, 2003 05:48:41 PM new
Did not feel qualified to rule on it ?? You're kidding right ? He did rule on it. I hope you don't think that a political question means the judge feels unqualified. The ruling also mentions that the congress is quite capable of stopping Bush anytime the necessary majority wishes Bush to stop.
I'll bet you 3 pumkin seeds and all my unpaired socks that his ruling will stand.
First,you have only a slight unstanding of the snipets of the ruling you posted and a huge misunderstanding of the Constitution and the judges statements.
Pay close attention to the ruling where it states that 1. considering the October congressional resolution there is no conflict between Congress and the President,and 2. Case law makes clear that the Congress does not have the exclusive right to determine whether or not the United States engages in war.
Neither position goes against the plain language of the constitution. You are misinterpreting what the judge means when he makes such statements.
First he states that Bush has the necessary permission of congress, and second, congress does not have the exclusive right to determine whether or not we are engaged in war- TAKE CLOSE NOTICE- the judge did not say declare war, he said engages in a war. Quite different meanings.
posted on February 24, 2003 10:13:19 PM new
REAMOND, you're entitled to your misunderstanding of what was clearly written in that article and I don't feel as though it's my job to educate you. My interpretation stands upon the facts given in the article. That you have refused in the past and clearly in the present to not acknowledge the clear language of the United States Constittuion does not make me the one who has a lack of understanding about it!
Article I, Section eight in part: "The Congress shall have power to . . . to declare war" No where in the United States Constitution does it state that Congress can sluff-off this onus on the executive branch. That it has happened in the past does not preserve the right for posterity.
posted on February 24, 2003 10:22:07 PM new
That is not what the judge said. Nothing has been sloughed off.
I said that a judge would rule that this is a "political" question long ago. You did not know what a constitutional political question was then and you still don't.
I think it is abundantly clear who knows their constitutional jurisprudence and who doesn't.
posted on February 25, 2003 10:06:29 AM new
What is scary is that by refusing to take the responsibility on their own shoulders the Congress has by defalt changed our form of government from representative republic to a sort of strange new representative, serial monarchy.
The fact that so many specific powers and rights are not following the original constitutional form but ad hoc forms undocumented paves the way for increasing deviation from the original form of government. And it's hard to see and constraints on how far afield they can go.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
(NOTE: The following represents the views of the author and not necessarily the views of the Naval Historical Center.)
Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798 - 1993
by Ellen C. Collier, Specialist in U.S. Foreign Policy,
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service -- Library of Congress -- October 7, 1993
Summary
This report lists 234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes. It brings up to date a 1989 list that was compiled in part from various older lists and is intended primarily to provide a rough sketch survey of past U.S. military ventures abroad. A detailed description and analysis are not undertaken here.
The instances differ greatly in number of forces, purpose, extent of hostilities, and legal authorization. Five of the instances are declared wars: the War of 1812, the Mexican War of 1846, the Spanish American War of 1898, World War I declared in 1917, and World War II declared in 1941.
Some of the instances were extended military engagements that might be considered undeclared wars. These include the Undeclared Naval War with France from 1798 to 1800; the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805; the Second Barbary War of 1815; the Korean War of 1950-53; the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1973; and the Persian Gulf War of 1991. In some cases, such as the Persian Gulf War against Iraq, Congress authorized the military action although it did not declare war.
posted on February 25, 2003 12:08:22 PM new
The problem is as antiquary states it to be. That the United States Constitution specifically gives the power to declare War only to Congress for a reason. That is so that War cannot be a matter had by a single person, but must pass at least a simple majority od Congress -- and not so simple an act. To give away that repsonsibility is to create a Dictatorship: for no other power than declaring War is there possible for a political act and this ultimate power rested int he hands of the people thorugh their elected officials, not to the Executive Branch. If the designers of our government thought that this was a good idea to have one person make those decisions, they wold have given it to the executive branch ala the President, instead of making it all so very difficult to take this nation ito War.
And today, we are already suffering from that Dictatorial problem. By having the majority of Congress agree to declare War, the majority of the people must be behind it as well. That way, when War is actually delcared, we are unified.
With this ultimate power being given into the hands of one man, the country is sharply divided and restless. That is bad for this country and it is unfair to blame it on protesters. Place the blame where it belongs -- squarly on the shoulders of those in Congress who voted for giving up this ultimate political power.
posted on February 25, 2003 12:16:23 PM new
Borillar, I think you are referring to gravid's previous statement rather than mine, though I do concur with him.
Yes, that's exactly it, gravid.
A relentless effort to undo the results of and to restructure government based upon the arrogant belief that George Washington's decision to limit the powers and length of service of the presidency was a mistake and to refight and win permanently a supremacy of an extremist Federalist position, removing the limitations of federal power granted to the states and the people, and the subsequent popularity and acceptance of Jeffersonian political philosophy by the people.
posted on February 25, 2003 12:17:22 PM new
>That is not what the judge said. Nothing has been sloughed off. I said that a judge would rule that this is a "political" question long ago. You did not know what a constitutional political question was then and you still don't.
REAMOND, whichever REAMOND that is writing under that account, the matter was brought before this judge for a ruling. A ruling was made, yes, but not like you keep on insisting that it was. The previous bill sent to a federal judge for the Gulf War was coldly crushed in the court's ruling. This judge ruled that since the lawsuit engaged "political questions in the legal sense that are beyond the jurisdiction of the court" the court could not rule in the plaintiff's favor. The judge went further to explain himself stating that "Case law makes clear that the Congress does not have the exclusive right to determine whether or not the United States engages in war."
So, the court is not qualified to render a favorable ruling and it is because of case history muddying up the waters, so to speak. This ruling is unlike the previous one and it leaves the door wide open. If the plaintiffs wish to continue, they must either reword the complaint so that it falls within the jurisdiction of the court or they can take it up to a higher court whose jurisdiction it is to resolve such matters.
>I think it is abundantly clear who knows their constitutional jurisprudence and who doesn't.
posted on February 25, 2003 12:20:12 PM new
Borillar,
I understand your point, but again we have had undeclared wars for a long time. They did not start with George W. Bush. So, I guess we have been living under a dictatorship and didn't even know it!
Seriously, Presidents usually get us into these "things" for whatever reason and pay the political consequences if things go awry.
I'm sure that this War will be the same. I have no worries that this nation is headed into Dictatorship. In a year and a half we will see what the population has thought about this. I really don't think that the election will be called off and a Dictatorship declared.
[ edited by bones21 on Feb 25, 2003 12:22 PM ]
posted on February 25, 2003 12:29:56 PM new
What planet are you folks getting this position that Congress has not met its constitutional obligations regarding the war and the resolution of October ?
The real problem here is a political minority trying to create a judicial position that suits their purposes. However, as the judge said - there is no judicial remedy for what they want. The only remedy is to get Congress to vote for a resolution that reverses the October resolution. But they realize they don't have the numbers to do it.
The "delegation" of Congress' declaration of war authority arguement just doesn't hold water and has no basis in Constitution jurisprudence or the present facts.
Not only has Congress given Bush a declaration of war, but every president has had the unilateral ability to wage nuclear war by resolution of Congress for decades. Congress gave the president permission to launch the US's entire nuclear arsenal without consulting Congress.
Congress has given permission to Bush to do what he is doing. Now a federal judge has stated the same.
Anytime Congress wants to stop Bush's operation of the war against Iraq, it need only pass a resolution to do so.
If Congress does pass such a resolution, and Bush then operates in opposition to it, you have a court case. That is exactly what the judge said in his ruling and it is completely in accord with the constitution.
posted on February 25, 2003 12:37:09 PM new
In other words - It's legal because you have been letting them get away with it so long it has become an established fact.
A sad reason - but that is how law works.
If you don't protest an irregularity when it first happens it becomes entrenched.
posted on February 25, 2003 12:56:57 PM new
That is not the reason.
What is going on now is in accord with the constitution and has nothing to do with how long it has been going on.
If we set aside the constitutional arguements for the time being and just consider the War Powers act, the president can wage war for a certain number of days even before seeking a resolution from the congress.
The bottom line is that Bush is acting within the permission already given by Congress. Congress can change this situation anytime it wants to do so.
If the palintiffs feel that strongly about it, they should be lobbying Congress instead of the courts. Congress is where the power to stop the president lies in this situation, not the courts. But stopping the president also means reversing their resolution of October.
