| TheTip.org |
| Polls | Members | Refer | Forums | Write for TheTip! | Home | Impeach Bush |
Impeach George Bush
Judge Denies Constitutional Separation of Powers
A group of congresspeople, military and civilians had sued the Bush Administration, claiming that they have no right to declare war or otherwise have warpowers. Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that he has no jurisdiction, effectively greenlighting the Bush Administration's excercise of a constitutionally guaranteed right of the congress.
Source: TheTip, 2003-02-23
Candidate: Judiciary
The suit named Bush and Rumsfeld as defendants, claiming that they had no right to make war, it being a constitutionally guaranteed right of the Congress.
The suit was brought by John Conyers of Michigan and James McDermott of Washington state.
The suit said that the framers of the US Constitution aimed to deny presidents the imperial war-making powers of European Monarchs and said the administration's plans for war on Iraq were unconstitutional because they violated that separation of powers.
Add a comment to this Message in our Forums.
While you're at it, check out our forums too!
User Originated Comments:
From: intern
2004-08-13 18:20:01
a judge can rule that he has no jurisdiction,
especially in the case of "political question"
cases...this is the first i've heard of this case,
but i can tell you (as someone who worked for
judge tauro as a law student) that i am sure the
judge agonized over the issue, and gave a
carefully thought-out ruling, based upon his best
interpretation of the law in question. i (as a
pretty liberal person and no friend of gwb) rather
resent the implication by this site that tauro's
decision had to do with anything but his
interpretation of the applicable law.
From: TheSplotch
2004-02-29 18:10:30
although i am no avid supporter of bush, i think
his actions were valid considering the extremity
of the situation. while they may not have been
constitutional from a literal approach, in light
of the situation and the recent rise in executive
power i don't think he was completely out of line
in taking charge. also, this would not have been
the first time a president has liberally used the
executive power in times of distress. looking in
hindsight it becomes easier to criticize his
actions. although there were people who
disapproved of the war from the beginning, that
number has drastically increased now that the war
is over.
From: emilynghiem
1999-11-30 00:00:00
(1) because of the emergency situation following
9-11, i agree it became necessary for bush to
respond in a way that -ssured law and order, both
for the american public, and nations around the
world.
(2) i agree with bush's
leadership and decisions in order to create that
security.
thus, i would endorse the judgment
of congress and the president in taking
action.
(3) however, since there was
dissension among members of congress and the
public, i would advise bush to act with the
condition that he answer to that opposition, and
create a council of their representatives, so that
during military proceedings, whatever objections
they have are taken into account. in this manner,
the objections are not ignored, but are used to
check his power through a cooperative partnership
with dissenting parties.
(4) i don't
think it's too late to set up such a
council.
in fact, i would highly recommend it
to colin powell and condoleeza rice -- to enlist
the participation of objectors to the war to act
as ombudsmen to families of detainees, and to form
liaisons with peace groups to bolster
reconstruction efforts in iraq by working with
legitimate leaders and coalitions, while also
exposing illegitimate ones.
i believe this
approach, of employing the opposition to help
rebuild infrastructure, would help prevent abuses
of power, would save resources currently wasted in
opposition, and would more quickly restore
security.
emily nghiem
houston
texas
emilynghiem@hotmail.com
From: Robbie
1999-11-30 00:00:00
following that reasoning, it makes the
constitution's language nugatory. you can't
interpret law in such a way as to make it
meaningless.
From: dnlawgator@aol.com
1999-11-30 00:00:00
if the president's executive powers include the
role to administrate his duties as "commander in
chief," then, that action strictly within that
prescribed framework ostensibly authorizes the
executive as commander in chief to "declare war."
the question is not one of constitutionality but
rather a preemptory call for war by the executive
administrator acting as commander in chief while
waiting for the congress to make the call.
Related News
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
owned by TheTIP.
[ Skip Next | Next | Random Site | List Sites |Previous ]
NEWS | ACTION | RESULTS | POLLS | MEMBERS | SEARCH