Appeals Court Revives Members' Suit to Stop War

Roll Call Magazine ^ | 10 March 2003 | Damon Chappie, Roll Call Staff

[goldstategop]

1st Circus clowns. They want to run the U.S army now? Figures.

[goldstategop]

Congress already gave President Bush that authority last October. In any event its hard to see how a federal court can impose an injunction on the U.S army to stop fighting in the middle of a war. Looks like the Supremes may need to step in and squash this one.

[Cacophonous]

No they don't want to run the Army. They want Congress to formally declare war, an obligation and duty specified in the Constitution.

[goldstategop]

So Congress can pass a declaration of war this weekend and the matter's moot.

[Cacophonous]

Again, you are missing the point. The Court's view of the war is unclear. What is not unclear is that Congress has not formally declared war, that they effectively sidestepped their obligation (and hence any ACCOUNTABILITY) by giving the President a blank check. That is one of the purposes of Article I, Section 8.

[Cacophonous]

So Congress can pass a declaration of war this weekend and the matter's moot.

Correct. I don't think they have the cojones to do it, because it would mean holding themselves accountable if things do not go as well as planned.

[goldstategop]

If the representatives of the people want to give the President the determination of when to go to war, I'd say they're acting within their authority. This country has launched military involvements without a congressional declaration of war before and the courts never took judicial notice.

[goldstategop]

I think they want to escape blame but share in the credit. Congress could cut off funding if things went awry.

[mhking]

Get outta the way.

Let's roll.

[AndyJackson]

I think that the SC has already pretty much settled this issue. When Congress passes budgets with full knowledge of where the money is going, and when they have passed resolutions authorizing the use of force they have for all intents and purposes exercised their war declaration powers.

[goldstategop]

Yup. Abraham Lincoln used to tell Chief Justice Taney his writ doesn't run as far as enforcement is concerned for if the courts make a ruling, its still up to the executive branch to enforce it.

[Cacophonous]

If the representatives of the people want to give the President the determination of when to go to war, I'd say they're acting within their authority.

With all due respect, while it is wonderful that you have studied the issue enough to have an opinion, when so many have not, what you think is not important, unless you are going to translate those thoughts into an attempt to amend the Constitution. What matters is what the Constitution says in Article I, Section 8.

This country has launched military involvements without a congressional declaration of war before and the courts never took judicial notice.

The President (whoever he was at the time) was wrong then, and the courts should have. Bad precedents should not be repeated.

[Cacophonous]

And the Constitution be damned, eh?

[goldstategop]

Exactly. And here moreover you have a congressional minority attempting to leverage the 1st Circuit appellate judges into subverting the will of the majority of Congress.

[Jim Noble]

>>"...we might as well write Article I, Section 8 out of the Constitution. It will effectively have no meaning."<<

Au contraire! It has a precise meaning.

Here is what declaring war means:

"A state of war is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."

All the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States

That's what it means when the People of the United States (acting through their representatives in Congress assembled) declare war on their enemies. That's the power that We assign to Congress in Article I, section 8.

And if you think that power is a nullity (as many here do), look what happens when our armed forces are in combat without "all the resources of the country".

The Commander-in-Chief is not CINC of the People, he is CINC of the armed forces. He already has the authority to order them into combat (this was already adjudicated in in both Korea and Vietnam, the lawsuit is an absurdity).

What he lacks the authority to do is to pledge the full resources of the nation to victory. And when that commitment is lacking, the results are all bad-the minority in Congress can complain constantly about every reverse and every bad thing that happens (as they do when you are not taking over Granada or Panama), the People are not fully engaged in the war effort, and the sustaining power of the People behind our troops tends to flag and then to fail.

The "War Powers Act" is unconstitutional, a pathetic attempt by a spineless Congress to have it both ways.

Only the People of the United States can declare War, and our only mechanism to do so is through our Representatives and Senators.

We should demand that they do so-not to enable the President to act, but to add the power of "all the resources of the nation" to the struggle that lies ahead.

[freeper12]

>>and a number of military members and their families

So they "military members" are happy to collect the pay and benefits of being in the military, just so long as we are at peace, but at the first sign of trouble the try to sue to get out of harms way?

[goldstategop]

Nope. Article 1, Section 8 is a political and not a justiciable matter.

[Cacophonous]

When Congress passes budgets with full knowledge of where the money is going, and when they have passed resolutions authorizing the use of force they have for all intents and purposes exercised their war declaration powers.

Old Hickory is spinning in his grave that someone using his name said such a thing...

[goldstategop]

Yah. Looks like it here.