16 Jun 11
Originally posted by whodeyI believe that it is an important point to bring up. Certainly a valid debate. So to your question, yes, a real deal.
As most know, about 10 or so Congressment from both parties are in the process of suing President Obama for allegedly being in Libya illegally.
What say you? Is this mere political positioning or the real deal?
16 Jun 11
Originally posted by whodeyThis happens every time a President goes to war since the 70s. The case will probably be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
As most know, about 10 or so Congressment from both parties are in the process of suing President Obama for allegedly being in Libya illegally.
What say you? Is this mere political positioning or the real deal?
17 Jun 11
Originally posted by sh76Which one(s)?
This happens every time a President goes to war since the 70s. The case will probably be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
On the merits, the case looks pretty solid to me; the administration argument that we aren't really engaged in hostilities as defined by the WPA is patently absurd.
17 Jun 11
Originally posted by no1marauderConyers v. Reagan comes to mind first.
Which one(s)?
On the merits, the case looks pretty solid to me; the administration argument that we aren't really engaged in hostilities as defined by the WPA is patently absurd.
http://openjurist.org/765/f2d/1124/conyers-v-reagan
There are others, but I'm too lazy to look them up right now.
17 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76You should get over your laziness if you want to make a persuasive argument; that case was dismissed as moot. It can hardly be argued that in the present situation, with ongoing hostilities, a suit challenging the President's authority under the WPA to commit forces to the Libyan conflict is "moot".
Conyers v. Reagan comes to mind first.
http://openjurist.org/765/f2d/1124/conyers-v-reagan
There are others, but I'm too lazy to look them up right now.
19 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay, how about...
You should get over your laziness if you want to make a persuasive argument; that case was dismissed as moot. It can hardly be argued that in the present situation, with ongoing hostilities, a suit challenging the President's authority under the WPA to commit forces to the Libyan conflict is "moot".
Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3rd 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
In sum, there are no standards to determine either the statutory or constitutional questions raised in this case, and the question of whether the President has intruded on the war-declaring authority of Congress fits squarely within the political question doctrine. We therefore have another basis for our affirming the district court's dismissal of appellants' case.
emphasis added
http://www.lawofwar.org/Campbell_v_Clinton.htm
21 Jun 11
1 edit
...or these
Dellums v. Bush, 752 F.Supp. 1141 (1990)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16581780212178521116&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Doe v. Bush, 323 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2003)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/1st/031266.html
Crockett v. Reagan, 720 F.2d 1355 (1983)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12725576697146205602&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
etc.