Posted on 03/16/2003 11:43:26 AM PST by ewing
However, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled Monday that the court did not have jurisdiction to issue an injunction against Mr. Bush.HereTauro said the lawsuit engaged "political questions in the legal sense that are beyond the jurisdiction of the court."
The judge added that, considering the October congressional resolution, he could not find evidence of any conflict between the will of the executive and legislative branches.
"Case law makes clear that the Congress does not have the exclusive right to determine whether or not the United States engages in war," he said.
So Tauro is going on precedence of past cases. And even then he said he didn't have the jurisdiction. However, my question still remains. IF we are to return to a Constitutional Republic, shouldn't we call all officials to the carpet if they don't do things by the document? Just because the Constitution has been thrown out the window for the past 140 years doesn't make it acceptable.
And again I must reiterate. I am not against the war, Hussein must be gotten rid of. However, the issue of Constitutional power is in question, not based on case law of former Presidents breaking the oath, but by what the document itself states
The losers have not appealed it so far.
I think they can read the cases that were cited as well as the judges.
For the Padilla case, search using Padilla as the search word, I am looking for the court ruling on the other. The part I posted was from a news article. I will post the thread which had the actual court case when I find it again.
As long as there is no conflict between the executive and legislative branches the court will stay out of it.
If it is not legal, why are they trying to repeal it?
And I hope that at least you would admit that neither branch is following the Constitution on many issues, not just the war issue
If it is not legal, why are they trying to repeal it?
It has been made into law over time with new acts, and power grabs by the executive branch. One could trace it back to the Militia Act I suppose, but my gut feeling is that most of what these war power acts are based on is lincoln's unconstitutional declaration of war in '61. He twisted the Militia Act of 1792 to fit his needs and began the war without Congressional approval until three months after the fact. Since then, except in the cases of WWI and WWII, I don't think there has been a Congressional declaration of war
Personal feeling, I think North Korea is much more of a threat than Iraq. But hey, we're giving them 40,000 tons of food this year. I just wish someone would explain that to me
According to the Constitution, only Congress can issue an official declaration of war; however, military action can begin without the approval of Congress in certain circumstances (incoming ballistic missiles, authorization already provided by Congress, violation of a cease-fire agreement, etc.)
Technically, Congress has already authorized the President to engage in military action against Iraq. President Bush, the elder, was granted permission by Congress during Desert Storm. Iraq has repeatedly violated the terms of the cease-fire, so, in essence, we are still fighting the same war.
The 106th Congress also authorized President Bush, the younger, to use military force, if necessary, in eliminating terrorism.
Moreover, the United Nations, themselves, gave the United States permission to use force against Iraq under UN Resolution 678, 687, 1154, and 1441.
Finally, several presidents have gone to "war" without an official Congressional declaration. Hell, Clinton declared war on Serbia without on official Congressional declaration, without approval from the United Nations, and in violation of public law 105-262 (HR4103, section 8106a)! That rump-swab didn't catch one tenth the grief President Bush is getting now, even with all of the authority Bush has behind him to move ahead.
All this handwringing is horsehocky, and many of the protests against "proper authority" are steaming piles of donkey doo. I believe that you asked the question in all sincerity, so this in not directed at you, but a bunch of folks raging about Bush acting like a "cowboy" now didn't raise a single voice in protest against Klintoon, when he really DID act like a wanna-be cowboy!
SPM3 (or ESM3) is the symbol for June futures.
I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. I didn't think you were doing the handwringing (I believe I indicated that I thought your question was sincerely asked). I should have used my sarcasm tag, because I was poking fun at the handwringing of those who think Bush is moving into uncharted terrority.
You are quite right, though. This *is* a secondary issue, a smokescreen, in fact, to try to undermine Bush's credibility and authority in launching a military campaign against Iraq.
My neice just informed us this weekend that she passed her written exam for the army. She's going for her physical next week, and plans to swear in as soon as she is able.
Stay safe!
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.