U.S. Court Rejects Appeal to Block War

Reuters | 3/13/03

[kattracks]

BOSTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Thursday upheld a lower court's ruling that rejected a legal bid by a group of soldiers and U.S. lawmakers to keep President Bush from invading Iraq without a formal declaration of war by Congress.

A three-judge panel for the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals posted an opinion on its Web site (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/) in which it affirmed U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro's decision to dismiss the lawsuit.

"The case before us is a somber and weighty one. We have considered these important concerns carefully, and we have concluded that the circumstances call for judicial restraint," Judge Sandra Lynch wrote in the ruling.

The civil lawsuit, brought by three members of the military, six parents of U.S. troops and members of the U.S. Congress, sought an injunction to stop potential U.S. military action on the grounds that only Congress has the right to declare war.

The suit, which named Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as defendants, said the framers of the U.S. Constitution aimed to deny presidents the imperial war-making powers of European monarchs.

Although Congress passed a resolution in October backing the possible use of U.S. military force against Iraq, the plaintiffs said this was an unconstitutional measure and did not amount to a formal declaration of war.

In his ruling last month, Tauro said a federal court can judge the war policies of political branches of government only when actions taken by Congress and the president are in "resolute" conflict -- a situation that he said did not exist at the time.

The appeals court said it was a question of "ripeness" -- and that it was essentially the wrong time for the judicial branch to intervene.

"The theory of collision between the legislative and executive branches is not suitable for judicial review, because there is not a ripe dispute concerning the President's acts and the requirements of the October Resolution passed by Congress," Lynch said in the appeals court's ruling.

Some 200,000 U.S. and 50,000 British troops are poised to invade Iraq, and Bush has vowed to go to war without United Nations backing if necessary.

[talleyman]

My goodness, you're busy - another great post. Thanks!

[hchutch]

Another roadblock out of the way.

[LisaFab]

Sigh...The War Powers Act.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Good decision, the proper response to a President who starts a war without Congressional approval is for Congress to exercise their authority and not fund the effort or to impeach the President. The Constitution gives all war power to Congress and the President with no mention of any role for the Judiciary. Since both the Congress and the President are elected the voters will have the ultimate authority at the next election.

[Redcloak]

Funny that Reuters doesn't note that Lynch is a Clinton appointee. They usually make it a point to identify as such judges who were appointed by Republican presidents.

[AndrewC]

Another roadblock out of the way.

What roadblock? That was a pissant.

[colorado tanker]

"The case before us is a somber and weighty one. We have considered these important concerns carefully, and we have concluded that the circumstances call for judicial restraint," Judge Sandra Lynch wrote in the ruling.

Translation from Judge-speak: This was one of the stupidist lawsuits I've ever seen; we had to quit laughing and calm down before coming into the courtroom to tell you to get lost.

[clamper1797]

Next stop ... the 9th circus court of appeasors

[joesnuffy]

Judges thinking their jobs are to obstruct the legislative process and that of The Commander & Chief

[firewalk]

bttt

[We Happy Few]

The Constitution does not give all war powers to Congress. There are at least two obvious cases:

(1) The United States is attacked (thus it is already at war, regardless of whether Congress issues a declaration of war). The President, as Commander in Chief, responds militarily to defend the country and punish the aggression.

(2) The Constitution explicitly gives the states the power to wage war in case of attack or imminent attack.

[PatrickHenry]

Good decision ...

Not to mention that it's a very realistic decision. Judges don't like to issue injunctions they can't enforce. How would a court enforce an injunction against the Pentagon? With the full power available to them through the US Marshals' office? Probably not.

[Wright is right!]

"Next stop ... the 9th circus court of appeasors."

Nope, out of their jurisdiction. This WAS a circuit court. Only thing higher is SCOTUS, and they'r deny cert in 2.2 seconds.

Michael

[Libertarianize the GOP]

My point incase you missed it was that war powers are vested in the Congress and the President with no authority given to the Judiciary.

Where do you find explicit authority for the States?

[Michael.SF.]

The civil lawsuit, brought by three members of the military, six parents of U.S. troops and members of the U.S. Congress, sought an injunction to stop potential U.S. military action on the grounds that only Congress has the right to declare war.

OK, I will ignore the three members of the military and overlook the six parents. But members of Congress? Congress did approve the use of force, by the President, so the lawsuit should have been thrown out on that ground.

This is how far the "activist court" mentality has taken us, that people would seriously consider the court as the logical recourse to actions taken by the executive branch.

Of course, these same Congressmen filed a similar suit against Clinton regarding Bosnia. Yeah....... right.

[Congressman Billybob]

I gather that you consider the War Powers Act to be unconstitutional. As a practitioner in the Supreme Court, I also consider it unconstitutional.

However, this case was decided on the War Powers Clause of the Constitution itself. And it threw out the case, exactly as I predicted it would do when it was first filed. Based on prior cases, the US SC will NOT consider the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, while hostilities are going on. (It has also filed several opportunities to take up that issue when war was NOT going on. Sometimes the cowardice of the Court is overwhelming.)

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, not yet up on UPI, and FR, "Once, Twice, Three Times a Moron"

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

[TheDon]

Did I miss something? I couldn't locate the names, or even party, of the "members of Congress" in this article. Is there some reason such important information was left out of the article?

[FairOpinion]

From the court opinion at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1266.01A

Here is the list of plaintiffs:

JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, JANE DOE I, SUSAN E. SCHUMANN, CHARLES RICHARDSON, NANCY LESSIN, JEFFREY MCKENZIE, JOHN CONYERS, DENNIS KUCINICH, JESSE JACKSON, JR., SHEILA JACKSON LEE, JIM MCDERMOTT, JOSÉ E. SERRANO, SALLY WRIGHT, DEBORAH REGAL, ALICE COPELAND BROWN, JERRYE BARRE, JAMES STEPHEN CLEGHORN, LAURA JOHNSON MANIS, SHIRLEY H. YOUNG, JULIAN DELGAUDIO, ROSE DELGAUDIO, DANNY K. DAVIS, MAURICE D. HINCHEY, CAROLYN KILPATRICK, PETE STARK, DIANE WATSON, LYNN C. WOOLSEY,

[Poohbah]

Nope, out of their jurisdiction. This WAS a circuit court. Only thing higher is SCOTUS, and they'r deny cert in 2.2 seconds.

As a bigtime geek, I have to ask about how you benchmarked this. I assume you used SupremeCourt 9.0.0.0 Gold Edition--that is the judicial benchmarker's standard. But there's some controversy on whether one should use AmbulanceChaser 12.5.1.2 (written in ANSI C) or the SueOnceLoseAnywhere 1.1.6 (which is written in Java). A few intrepid souls are using GNUsanceSuit 0.9 (an open source litigation package, presently in beta--and only available for Linux). :o)