Supreme Court AWOL on Iraq

[AdD 1]

Quote

In December, the Supreme Court opted not to hear the civil suit Clair Callan Vs. President George W. Bush. The plaintiff in the suit is a senior citizen and former Congressman from Nebraska. The case has slowly made its way through the lower courts, which have rejected it on the grounds that they have no jurisdiction to hear the suit, or that Mr. Callan does not have a lawful cause of action. The suit alleges that the president violated American law by invading Iraq. Specifically at issue is compliance with the War Powers Act.



In 1973, a post-Vietnam War Congress wanted to ensure that no future president could send troops into battle without just cause and congressional oversight. Consequently, it passed a law, known as the War Powers Act, which permits the president to introduce the military into combat "where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." Congress was very determined that this requirement be met before sending troops overseas, as is evidenced by the fact that this verbiage appears in the act four times. The act further stipulates that the president has 60 days to obtain from Congress a declaration of war, or specific approval for the continued use of the military, otherwise the troops must be withdrawn...

Read the rest @ http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7147

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[Ron 10]

Congress Authorized the use of force

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jdhill 0]

Maybe not this particular non-case, but the issue of compliance with the WPA has been discussed here... The President has reported to congress, and congress authorized action, and continues to do so through appropriations.

I guess that's why the courts have found no cause of action...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[AdD 1]

Maybe I should have posted the rest of it, the first bit was a little short...

Quote

In 1973, a post-Vietnam War Congress wanted to ensure that no future president could send troops into battle without just cause and congressional oversight. Consequently, it passed a law, known as the War Powers Act, which permits the president to introduce the military into combat "where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." Congress was very determined that this requirement be met before sending troops overseas, as is evidenced by the fact that this verbiage appears in the act four times. The act further stipulates that the president has 60 days to obtain from Congress a declaration of war, or specific approval for the continued use of the military, otherwise the troops must be withdrawn.



This civil suit accuses the president of failing to meet the requirements of the act. Although Congress in 2002 did give the president approval to use the military against Iraq, the suit alleges that "imminent involvement" by the military was not "clearly indicated by the circumstances." Leading up to the war, and subsequent to it, President Bush used phrases such as "a gathering threat" to describe the necessity of military action. In fact, in his State of the Union address in 2003, he remarked that "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent...If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late." As such, this case clearly has merit.



The civil suit may well be valid in another respect. The Congress that passed the War Powers Act was concerned with the lack of an exit strategy in Vietnam.



In an effort to prevent any future administration from entering into a war without a plan to extricate American forces from it, the act requires that the president periodically report on the "estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement" to Congress. The White House has found this conspicuously difficult to do since invading Iraq. The administration's justification for not including the on-going cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in its budget has been that it cannot predict how many forces will ultimately be needed, how much money will be spent, or how long this military action will last. The president has said repeatedly that he does not know when the troops will get to come home, only that they will not stay longer than necessary. Given that, this would seem to be a further violation of the act.



Not surprisingly, most presidents have tried to ignore the War Powers Act, and have seen it as an infringement of the powers of the executive branch. In fact, President Nixon attempted to veto the act. When criticized, presidents have typically cited Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution which stipulates that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." President Reagan ignored the act when he undertook military action in Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, Central America, and the Persian Gulf. President Bush said the act didn't apply to military engagements in Panama, and initially, the Gulf War. President Clinton did much the same with regard to military deployments in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and Iraq.



Bush is not the first president to face litigation over the act. In 1991, 52 members of Congress filed a lawsuit in federal court against President Bush, accusing him of failing to meet the requirements of the War Powers Act as he prepared for the Gulf War. While the court admitted that the case was legitimate, it ultimately decided that it could not render a verdict since Congress had not decided if a declaration of war was necessary. Although Bush initially maintained that the act did not apply, he ultimately sought and received congressional approval. In the civil suit Campbell Vs. Clinton, 17 members of Congress sued President Clinton for engaging in the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 in violation of the act. In this instance, the court ruled that since Congress had neither approved of nor blocked continuation of the military campaign in Yugoslavia, there was not a constitutional impasse, and therefore there was no need to issue a ruling.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[dorbie 0]

He he, well where's congress? Or the people?!!

They were free to vote for someone else, and congress can debate and pass legislation and impeach all it likes, there's barely been a peep out of congress on this, in fact as posted they did authorize this.

Dude you have a representative government, why the obsession trying to let a bunch of old farts nobody voted for directly impose their opinion on the majority? Could it just be that you're in the minority in this case and want a do-over. This was was pretty popular at the time, you can object to it post facto but pretending this was some renegade running off and starting a war without approval revises history.

[lawrocket 3]

You know, it's always interesting to us legal types when we see things like this. There's often a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's role, and even the role of the federal judiciary.

This cat's lawsuit was thrown out of court. Why? Likely for the same reason Campbell v. Clinton was dismissed. In that case, a Congressman, individually and suing on behalf of the House of Representatives, sued Clinton for violation of the War Powers Act. The DC Appeals court found that the Congressman didn't have standing to sue. Therefore, there is no need to get to the merits.

The Appeals Court in Campbell relied on the Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), where the Court found that Congressmen don't have standing to assert an institutional claim against a POTUS. Hell, Congress could simply vote to not allow a POTUS to do it, which makes the controversy a "political question." Federal courts are bound to stay out of "political questions."

That's what happened here. Some private citizen questions US policy and goes to court. The court says, "Tell Congress and the President. This is their job."

Somehow, I don't have a problem with a Court saying, "This separation of powers thing, we gotta stick to it. And we shouldn't be interfering with the political process."

The Court says it has no business ruling on the merits of the case. If the Court ruled on the merits, it would be an advisory opinion, and Federal Courts are prohibited from issuing those.

My wife is hotter than your wife.