Skip to comments.
U.S. Court Rejects Appeal to Block War
Reuters
| 3/13/03
Posted on 03/13/2003 10:58:23 AM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-30 last
To: Poohbah
"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)" Actually none of those. I used ScaliaJudicialGuffaw 8.0.1.0 with the RehnquistSidesplit Plug-In Module. You can also get a close approximation under NoGorithm 7.2.
Michael
To: Wright is right!
Ah, a classic set.
BTW, did you ever get the ThomasRollEyesHeavenward module to work properly? It always went into an infinite loop whenever it interacted with the BoiesThrowStuffAtTheWallAndPrayItSticks module...
22
posted on
03/13/2003 1:52:00 PM PST
by
Poohbah
(Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
To: FairOpinion
This suit was essentially brought by the Progressive Caucus (aka DemocratSocialists of America)
23
posted on
03/13/2003 2:04:15 PM PST
by
ez
(Advise and Consent = Debate and VOTE!!)
To: talleyman; kattracks
My goodness, you're busy
This is Kats smaller computer room she uses the big on in the morning
LOL
24
posted on
03/13/2003 6:53:45 PM PST
by
ATOMIC_PUNK
("He is a moss-gatherer, and I have been a stone doomed to rolling." Gandalf)
To: Congressman Billybob
Why are you saying that this was decided on the war powers clause of the Constitution itself?
Granted, I've only given the opinion a cursory glance, but it appears to me as if this was a "case and controversy" dodge. I didn't see the court reaching the merits at all.
To: kattracks
Ah. I see they have part of the cast of "The Jeffersons" and "Snow White" as parties to the suit:
JOHN CONYERS - George
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, - Weezy
DENNIS KUCINICH - Grumpy
JESSE JACKSON, JR. - Sleepy
JIM MCDERMOTT - Dopey
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
...she uses the big on in the morning Now, if I only had spell check.
To: kattracks
They should be nailed for bringing a frivolous law suit.
The US has declared war precisely six times.
the War of 1812, against the Spanish in 1846, Against the Germans in 1917, against the Austrians and Hungarians also in 1917 or 18 and against Japan in 1941.
All other miltary action by the US was carried out without a Declaration of War.
28
posted on
03/13/2003 10:34:28 PM PST
by
Wil H
To: Poohbah
"BTW, did you ever get the ThomasRollEyesHeavenward module to work properly? It always went into an infinite loop whenever it interacted with the BoiesThrowStuffAtTheWallAndPrayItSticks module..." The ThomasREH module and the BoiesHurl plug-in have unresolvable conflicts resulting in a stack overflow at register O.H.4.A.B.A.R.F.
Michael
To: Libertarianize the GOP
Two points.
The Judiciary does have some role with respect to "war" because Article III, section 3, clause 1 empowers the Judiciary to try cases of treason. Treason is a defined as an offense in terms of "levying War against [the United States]" or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Thus, a conviction for treason with respect to the first of these two phrases would require a court to reach the conclusion, as a matter of law, that a state of "war" existed. It is true that this judicial power is not the power to wage war, but the political implications of being able to say whether the country is or is not "at war" as a technical legal matter are not trivial.
Second, a state has the explicit power under Article I, section 10, clause 3 to wage war if it is actually invaded or is "in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." It is not hard to see the importance of this right for the frontier states 200 years ago. The power may be considered archaic today, but the constitutional right still explicitly exists.
30
posted on
03/15/2003 3:36:16 AM PST
by
We Happy Few
("we band of brothers; for he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother;")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-30 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson