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

Skip to comments.

Court Rejects Lawmakers' Challenge to ABM Withdrawal
AP ^ | 12/30/02 | The Associated Press

Posted on 12/30/2002 3:29:23 PM PST by Jean S

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by 32 lawmakers who wanted to stop President Bush's withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The plaintiffs had contended the withdrawal, which took effect in June, was unconstitutional because President Bush had not sought Congress' approval.

U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled Monday that the lawmakers lacked standing to bring the case, and the withdrawal from the treaty was a political matter, not judicial.

The ABM Treaty was a vital arms control agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. Bush claimed it became outdated after the Cold War, and the United States needed to develop missile defenses to protect itself from attacks by small countries with missiles and animosity toward the United States.

Bates said lawmakers could have tried political action to prevent Bush from withdrawing from the treaty. For example, they could have sought to deny money for anti-ballistic missile systems.

"The fact that plaintiffs have several political arrows in their legislative quiver underscores the reluctance of the courts needlessly to involve themselves in interbranch disputes," Bates said.

He also noted the lawmakers were not authorized by the House or any committee to bring the lawsuit, and lawmakers were unable to win support for a resolution to urge Bush to consult with Congress on the withdrawal.

"Permitting individual congressmen to run to federal court any time they are on the losing end of some vote or issue would circumvent and undermine the legislative process," he said.

AP-ES-12-30-02 1817EST


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last
To: JeanS
The ABM Treaty was a vital arms control agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union.

There is no Soviet Union. It's a treaty with a ghost. Ghosts aren't protected by our Constitution - yet.
Give the liberals a few years, and the democrat ghost voters will be askng for elitist status!

61 posted on 12/30/2002 8:04:50 PM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
The thirty-one Members of Congress bringing the lawsuit are:

Just more Democrat anti-Amercans, and one Independant following the herd. Go figure.

62 posted on 12/30/2002 8:08:52 PM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Lessee; we've got a dead broad, Wisconsin's most embarrassing Congresscritter, the Baghdad two-step, the only impeached/convicted member of Congress, the only admitted Communist, the fattest member of Congress, a Congresscritter who's been served her eviction papers, assorted race pimps and the most-clueless member of Congress. No Senators, though, and no one with enough brains to file this in the right court (and I won't be giving hints as to which court that may be).
63 posted on 12/31/2002 3:37:49 AM PST by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Not completely accurate. While the Senate must give advice and consent to treaties, the House does have a role in treaty making under the Constitution in that it has to appropriate monies to carry out the terms of the treaty. But since here the House never acted to appropriate funds to implement the ABM Treaty or to otherwise take steps to block the President's withdrawal of this country's being a party to the aforesaid treaty, the suit by the members had no legal standing. And the courts as a rule do not get involved in political controversies.
64 posted on 12/31/2002 3:44:09 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
In this case, the terms of the ABM Treaty were negative in nature (meaning that we agreed to NOT build ABM systems), and did not involve any expenditure of funds. In that sense, you're correct.
65 posted on 12/31/2002 5:04:02 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Guy Angelito
I think you mean the treaty ceded him this power. Thus, the treaty, or 'law' allowed a process in which the President can effectively withdraw from it. He simply followed its terms. What a waste of judicial resources.

No, I meant that the withdrawal clause of the ABM Treaty did not create a process specifically identifying the President as having the authority to issue the withdrawal unilaterally.

There is an interesting Constitutional question that remains unasked: can the President unilaterally withdraw from a treaty without a clause in that treaty specifically granting that power to the President? Or does the Senate have any say in the matter, as they are responsible for ratifying treaties?

This is an interesting separation of powers issue. The Executive Branch, as head of state, is responsible for intercourse with other nations at a state-to-state level (diplomacy and negotiating treaties). However, the Senate is charged with giving a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down on treaties--and the treaties' status as law does give the Senate at least a pretext of a claim on the decision to maintain or renounce them. A reasonable and sane argument can be made on both sides of this issue.

However, as I noted earlier, the Senate has punted on this issue. If they do it often enough, then the courts will be forced to say that whatever implied power the Senate may have had was lost by voluntary cession.

66 posted on 12/31/2002 5:14:25 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

Comment #67 Removed by Moderator

To: Poohbah
Not sure if there are any answers in this but...

GOLDWATER v CARTER

68 posted on 12/31/2002 7:03:23 AM PST by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The Executive Branch, as head of state, is responsible for intercourse with other nations at a state-to-state level.

That explains Clinton's administration! ;^)

Isn't it interesting how liberals race to find a sympathetic court when they don't get their way?

69 posted on 12/31/2002 7:56:15 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Congressmen, That don't get that whole "Constitution' thing...
70 posted on 12/31/2002 8:06:31 AM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
The members of the Progressive Caucus:

Peter DeFazio

Dennis Kucinich (Chairman)

Barbara Lee (Vice Chair)

Cynthia McKinney(DEFEATED)

Major Owens

Bernie Sanders

Paul Wellstone(ASSUMED ROOM TEMPERATURE)



Neil Abercrombie

Tammy Baldwin

Xavier Becerra

David Bonior(LEAVING)

Corrine Brown

Sherrod Brown

Michael Capuano

Julia Carson

William "Lacy" Clay

John Conyers

Danny Davis

Rosa DeLauro

Lane Evans

Eni Faleomavaega

Sam Farr

Chaka Fattah

Bob Filner

Barney Frank

Luis Gutierrez

Earl Hilliard

Maurice Hinchey

Jesse Jackson, Jr

Sheila Jackson-Lee

Stephanie Tubbs Jones

Marcy Kaptur

Tom Lantos

John Lewis

Jim McDermott

James P. McGovern

Carrie Meek

George Miller

Patsy Mink(ASSUMED ROOM TEMPERATURE)

Jerry Nadler

Eleanor Holmes Norton

John Olver

Ed Pastor

Donald Payne

Nancy Pelosi

Bobby Rush

Jan Schakowsky

Jose Serrano

Hilda Solis

Pete Stark

Bennie Thompson

John Tierney

Tom Udall

Nydia Velazquez

Maxine Waters

Diane Watson

Mel Watt

Henry Waxman


Lynn Woolsey
71 posted on 12/31/2002 8:07:04 AM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Get your mind out of the gutter :o)

Isn't it interesting how liberals race to find a sympathetic court when they don't get their way?

Yes, it is.

This question, though, is one of those issues that's never been properly raised. Maybe it should be, just to clear the air. Or perhaps its already too late to do so--have very many treaties been unilaterally renounced by the Executive without protest from the Senate?

72 posted on 12/31/2002 8:22:35 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: michigander
Interesting link. I think the "best chance" for review of this issue would be for the President to unilaterally revoke a treaty, and the Senate, as a body, to seek remedy in the Judicial branch (by passing a formal resolution and directing their counsel to pursue such a suit). All pretty much agreed that the issue was, in some manner, justicable; they just didn't agree on how it was justicable.
73 posted on 12/31/2002 8:28:39 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
I don't see why they're objecting to our withdrawl from a treaty that the Russians broke every chance they got.
As well as it being an insane treaty signed into law to 'garner the affection' of a morally corrupt and insane nation.
74 posted on 12/31/2002 8:40:39 AM PST by Darksheare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
If the Russians aren't complaining about it, our Left can hardly be softer on national defense than Moscow.

An interesting tidbit: While the debate was going on, President Bush visited President Putin, and in conversation noted to Putin that the American media trusts his opinion more than it does Bush's - and that if Putin didn't make a big deal out of it, the media would let it go. Putin didn't so the issue went away.

75 posted on 12/31/2002 8:47:16 AM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
This suit was brought by "Progressive Caucus" members, a bunch of socialist scumbags who are scared stiff that they are going to be rounded up and disappeared one day.

Democratic Socialists of America's Progressive Caucus, a group ofUNPATRIOTIC UNAMERICAN subversives that are actively engaged in overthrowing the capitalist system of government in the USA and transforming it into a socialist nation.

"Progressive" is a code word for socialist, note that Sanders of VT is an officer.

Why these people are allowed to get on national TV and not disclose or be asked by the press reagrding their membership in a socialist organization is beyond me.

The table below was downloaded from the Democratic Socialists of America

Members of the Progressive Caucus


officers
Member/Position/District
Address Phone Website
Peter DeFazio
(OFFICER, OREGON-04)
2134 RHOB 225-6416 WEBSITE
Dennis Kucinich (Chairman)
(CHAIR, OHIO-10)
1730 LHOB 225-5871 WEBSITE
Barbara Lee (Vice Chair)
(OFFICER, CALIFORNIA-09)
426 CHOB 225-2661 WEBSITE
Cynthia McKinney
(OFFICER, GEORGIA-04)
124 CHOB 225-1605 WEBSITE
Major Owens
(OFFICER, NEW YORK-11)
2309 RHOB 225-6231 WEBSITE
Bernie Sanders
(OFFICER, VERMONT)
2135 RHOB 225-4115 WEBSITE
Paul Wellstone
(OFFICER, MINNESOTA)
136 HSOB 224-5641 WEBSITE

members
Member/Position/District
Address Phone Website
Neil Abercrombie
(MEMBER, HAWAII-01)
1502 LHOB 225-2726 WEBSITE
Tammy Baldwin
(MEMBER, WISCONSIN-02)
1022 LHOB 225-2906 WEBSITE
Xavier Becerra
(MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-30)
1119 LHOB 225-6235 WEBSITE
David Bonior
(MEMBER, MICHIGAN-10)
2207 RHOB 225-2106 WEBSITE
Corrine Brown
(MEMBER, FLORIDA-03)
2444 RHOB 225-0123 WEBSITE
Sherrod Brown
(MEMBER, OHIO-13)
2438 RHOB 225-3401 WEBSITE
Michael Capuano
(MEMBER, MASSACHUSETTS-08)
1232 LHOB 225-5111 WEBSITE
Julia Carson
(MEMBER, INDIANA-10)
1339 LHOB 225-4011 WEBSITE
William "Lacy" Clay
(MEMBER, MISSOURI-01)
415 CHOB 225-2406 WEBSITE
John Conyers
(MEMBER, MICHIGAN-14)
2426 RHOB 225-5126 WEBSITE
Danny Davis
(MEMBER, ILLINOIS-07)
1222 LHOB 225-5006 WEBSITE
Rosa DeLauro
(MEMBER, CONNECTICUT-03)
2262 RHOB 225-3661 WEBSITE
Lane Evans
(MEMBER, ILLINOIS-17)
2211 RHOB 225-5905 WEBSITE
Eni Faleomavaega
(MEMBER, AMERICAN SAMOA)
2422 RHOB 225-8577 WEBSITE
Sam Farr
(MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-17)
1221 LHOB 225-2861 WEBSITE
Chaka Fattah
(MEMBER, PENNSYLVANIA-02)
1205 LHOB 225-4001 WEBSITE
Bob Filner
(MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-50)
2463 RHOB 225-8045 WEBSITE
Barney Frank
(MEMBER, MASSACHUSETTS-04)
2252 RHOB 225-5931 WEBSITE
Luis Gutierrez
(MEMBER, ILLINOIS-04)
2452 RHOB 225-8203 WEBSITE
Earl Hilliard
(MEMBER, ALABAMA-07)
1314 LHOB 225-2665 WEBSITE
Maurice Hinchey
(MEMBER, NEW YORK-26)
2431 RHOB 225-6335 WEBSITE
Jesse Jackson, Jr
(MEMBER, ILLINOIS-02)
313 CHOB 225-0773
Sheila Jackson-Lee
(MEMBER, TEXAS-18)
403 CHOB 225-3816 WEBSITE
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
(MEMBER, OHIO-11)
1516 LHOB 225-7032 WEBSITE
Marcy Kaptur
(MEMBER, OHIO-09)
2366 RHOB 225-4146 WEBSITE
Tom Lantos
(MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-12)
2217 RHOB 225-3531 WEBSITE
John Lewis
(MEMBER, GEORGIA-05)
343 CHOB 225-3801 WEBSITE
Jim McDermott
(MEMBER, WASHINGTON-07)
1035 LHOB 225-3106 WEBSITE
James P. McGovern
(MEMBER, MASSACHUSETTS-03)
430 CHOB 225-6101 WEBSITE
Carrie Meek
(MEMBER, FLORIDA-17)
2433 RHOB 225-4506 WEBSITE
George Miller
(MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-07)
2205 RHOB 225-2095 WEBSITE
Patsy Mink
(MEMBER, HAWAII-02)
2210 RHOB 225-4906 WEBSITE
Jerry Nadler
(MEMBER, NEW YORK-08)
2334 RHOB 225-5635 WEBSITE
Eleanor Holmes Norton
(MEMBER, D.C.)
2136 RHOB 225-8050 WEBSITE
John Olver
(MEMBER, MASSACHUSETTS-01)
1027 LHOB 225-5335 WEBSITE
Ed Pastor
(MEMBER, ARIZONA-02)
2465 RHOB 225-4065 WEBSITE
Donald Payne
(MEMBER, NEW JERSEY-10)
2209 RHOB 225-3436 WEBSITE
Nancy Pelosi
(MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-08)
2457 RHOB 225-4965 WEBSITE
Bobby Rush
(MEMBER, ILLINOIS-01)
2416 RHOB 225-4372 WEBSITE
Jan Schakowsky
(MEMBER, ILLINOIS-09)
515 CHOB 225-2111 WEBSITE
Jose Serrano
(MEMBER, NEW YORK-16)
2342 RHOB 225-4361 WEBSITE
Hilda Solis
(MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-31)
1641 LHOB 225-5464 WEBSITE
Pete Stark
(MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-13)
239 CHOB 225-5065 WEBSITE
Bennie Thompson
(MEMBER, MISSISSIPPI-02)
2432 RHOB 225-5876 WEBSITE
John Tierney
(MEMBER, MASSACHUSETTS-06)
120 CHOB 225-8020 WEBSITE
Tom Udall
(MEMBER, NEW MEXICO-03)
502 CHOB 225-6190 WEBSITE
Nydia Velazquez
(MEMBER, NEW YORK-12)
2241 RHOB 225-2361 WEBSITE
Maxine Waters
(MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-35)
2344 RHOB 225-2201 WEBSITE
Diane Watson
(MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-32)
2413 RHOB 225-7084 WEBSITE
Mel Watt
(MEMBER, NORTH CAROLINA-12)
2236 RHOB 225-1510 WEBSITE
Henry Waxman
(MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-29)
2204 RHOB 225-3976 WEBSITE
Lynn Woolsey
(MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-06)
2263 RHOB 225-5161 WEBSITE



Congressional Progressive Caucus

76 posted on 12/31/2002 9:03:09 AM PST by Rome2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
Let's see - you've got Patsy MInk and Paul WEllstone ~ sure is great to see those liberal DEAD folks still working hard!
77 posted on 12/31/2002 9:20:28 AM PST by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: lepton
Now THAT is an evil psychological ploy against the Communist media...
78 posted on 12/31/2002 9:31:26 AM PST by Darksheare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
I'm curious if there were any public funds used to bring this lawsuit.
79 posted on 12/31/2002 4:02:47 PM PST by LaraCroft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last

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