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

Skip to comments.

Appeals Court Revives Members' Suit to Stop War
Roll Call Magazine ^ | 10 March 2003 | Damon Chappie, Roll Call Staff

Posted on 03/13/2003 4:03:27 AM PST by Cacophonous

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last
To: goldstategop
>>I think they want to escape blame but share in the credit. Congress could cut off funding if things went awry<<

If by "they" you mean Congress you are exactly correct.

And, as a practical matter, they cannot cut off funding to our troops when they ar engaged in combat.

21 posted on 03/13/2003 4:20:18 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
I thought that the war powers act covered this area.
22 posted on 03/13/2003 4:20:25 AM PST by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
>>when they have passed resolutions authorizing the use of force they have for all intents and purposes exercised their war declaration powers<<

Please read my post #16 to understand what Congress has not done.

23 posted on 03/13/2003 4:21:37 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE
The War Powers Act has been considered by every President to be unconstitutional.
24 posted on 03/13/2003 4:21:41 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Thank you. Nice post...brings up some issues I hadn't considered.
25 posted on 03/13/2003 4:24:02 AM PST by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
The earliest they could rule would be Tuesday. Hopefully that will jolt the White House to move up the war schedule.
26 posted on 03/13/2003 4:24:02 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
========= 2003 FR Judicial Watch in the USA =========

HEROES DEFEND THE USA AND CONSTITUTION
ZEROES HELP THE ENEMIES OF THE US MORE THAN DRIVERS OF SUVs


HEROES
Circuit Judges Randolph, Williams, and Garland of the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously ruled.
"No court in this country has jurisdiction to [hear constitutional claims of] the Guantanamo detainees,
even if they have not been adjudicated enemies of the United States".

HERO
Chief Judge William Young, First Circuit: "We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid ...
"You’re a big fellow. But you’re not that big. You’re no warrior. I know warriors....
You are a terrorist, a species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders."
To call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. You are a terrorist, and we do not negotiate with terrorists.
We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice. ...
"See that flag, Mr. Reid? That is the flag of the United States of America That flag will fly there long after this is long forgotten."

HEROES
4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the status of 22-year-old Yaser Esam Hamdi
as a citizen did not change the fact he was captured in Afghanistan while fighting with Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists.

HERO
Judge John Bates ruled lawmakers lacked standing to bring the case to stop withdrawal
from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty because it is a political matter, not judicial.<>

HEROES:
The U.S. Supreme Court ending misuse of public funds
and a coup by Mary Frances Berry (D, US Commission of Civil Rights).

HEROES:
Judges Guy Jr., Leavy, Silberman - Expanded wiretap guidelines do not violate the Constitution

HEROES:
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - Court blocks legal challenge to detention of Afghan war prisoners

HEROES:
Rebecca W. Watson, Assistant Interior secretary and those who reversed
the Clinton administration's decision to deny approval of a power source
obtained from tapping into hot water beneath the surface of the Medicine Lake caldera,
a 6-mile-by-4-mile remnant of a collapsed volcano in the Modoc National Forest.
48-megawatts will now be produced.


ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT BY ZEROES

ZEROES:
In Boston, the federal appeals court
[normally devoted to protecting and defending drug companies
like Schering-Plough, which fund the court with $$$$$ and junkets for judges]
reversed a reasonable denial by (hero) federal Judge Tauro
who threw out a complaint by "peace" protesters against President Bush
as he works around the clock with the valiant US military to protect America after 911.
This is the same court which also removed a picture of President Bush from the court's walls,
even though Clinton's remained.

ZERO:
In Los Angeles, US District Judge Robert Takasugi of Los Angeles issued a preliminary
injunction blocking enforcement of the US citizenship requirement for airport guards.

ZEROES:
In Washington, US Federal Circuit Appellate Judges Clevenger, Friedman and Prost
turn down an Appeal accompanied by evidence of usurping US Constitution and US energy security.by the US Patent Office.
The Court inaccurately purported that measuring energy output has "no utility" for the USA
even as the USA is at War and greatly and urgently needs energy sources.
To cover it up, amicus curiae were gagged who would have testified that the Patent Office misquoted them.
[Meanwhile, the US Patent Office under Q. Todd Dickenson continued to issue patents using
astrology to predict lottery numbers, claiming that in contrast to energy patents,
astrology and lottery predictions of the future have unique "operability" and "utility"].

ZEROES:
In San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says in Silviera v. Lockyer,
that "the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms."

27 posted on 03/13/2003 4:24:24 AM PST by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Ping to read later. I completely agree with your comments, BTW.
28 posted on 03/13/2003 4:26:14 AM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Thanks for the list, although I am not sure what your point is...
29 posted on 03/13/2003 4:27:03 AM PST by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Thank you.
30 posted on 03/13/2003 4:29:19 AM PST by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
a smaller group of House Democrats is again asking the courts to intervene before the United States launches a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation>>

Wonder where their lawsuit was when Clintoon was "declaring was without permission"?
31 posted on 03/13/2003 4:29:38 AM PST by glory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE
>>I thought that the war powers act covered this area<<

The "War Powers Act" is unconstitutional.

There are (at least two) "war powers". The first, the power to command the Army and the Navy, is assigned to the President in Article II, section 2 and is not subject to Congressional review. This power is sufficient to engage in combat against our enemies and the purported limitation on this power by the WPA is an obvious nullity, as it would (if taken seriously) amend Article II, section 2.

The second "war power" is the power to commit all the resources of the nation to victory. This power is assigned to Congress in Article I, section 8. The President cannot commit the resources of the nation to victory, because he can only command such armed forces as Congress has designated and provided for. To pretend, as Lyndon Johnson did, that his role as CINC allowed him to act in the name of the nation, is a fraud and would in effect amend Article I, section 8.

We must demand that Congress declare war in our name. Only We the People have the power to do this, and we delegated it to Congress in 1788.

Let's roll.

32 posted on 03/13/2003 4:29:54 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Bush has his "declaration of war." Congress authorized the action.

Clinton didn't even bother going to Congress.

These people are a complete sham. They ought to be ejected.
33 posted on 03/13/2003 4:34:09 AM PST by Illbay (Don't believe every tagline you read - including this one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glory
Wonder where their lawsuit was when Clintoon was "declaring was without permission"?

Good question. A better question is "Where were the Republicans?", the loyal opposition at the time.

34 posted on 03/13/2003 4:35:12 AM PST by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
You are really dense. There is a "declaration of war" for all intents and purposes.

I don't know what words YOU think ought to be uttered, but the Constitution doesn't specify. Therefore, Congress authorizing the President to proceed is a "declaration of war" that passes Constitutional muster.

Except maybe for pissant would-be "jurists" like yourself.
35 posted on 03/13/2003 4:35:46 AM PST by Illbay (Don't believe every tagline you read - including this one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Acting with surprising speed, a federal appeals court in Boston has revived a lawsuit seeking to block President Bush from launching an attack against Iraq without a formal declaration of war approved by Congress.

Where were they when Clinton was lobbing missles (the military kind)?

36 posted on 03/13/2003 4:36:04 AM PST by IncPen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Any federal judge that tries to stop President Bush from carrying out his duties to protect the American people, after receiving explicit approval to do so from the Congress (not that such approval was necessary) is unfit and should be removed from the bench asap.
37 posted on 03/13/2003 4:36:42 AM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Illbay; Jim Noble
Authorization is not a formal declaration.

Come on...pressure your Congresscritter to formally declare war: it is in accordance with the Constitution, and guarantees that the full resources of the nation are devoted to the effort (as Jim Noble has so eloquently explained).

As an aside, the Constitution says nothing about the UN, but it is depressing that our President is more concerned about UN approval than abiding by the Constitution.

38 posted on 03/13/2003 4:38:54 AM PST by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
What matters is what the Constitution says in Article I, Section 8

What does it say? It says Congress shall have the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water..."

That's pretty broad. The President went to the Congress asking for "letters of Marque and Reprisal," which were granted by Congress.

They made Rules concening Captures on Land and Water (through a defense authorization bill).

People like you are just WEIRD to me.

39 posted on 03/13/2003 4:39:35 AM PST by Illbay (Don't believe every tagline you read - including this one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Actually, what you have are Leftists attempting to use the courts to impose their extreme minority will on the nation through the courts.

Same song, 1,085th verse.
40 posted on 03/13/2003 4:40:36 AM PST by Illbay (Don't believe every tagline you read - including this one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next 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