February 26, 2003
Court Challenge to Bush Heats Up
U.S. SOLDIERS, PARENTS OF SOLDIERS AND 12 CONGRESS PEOPLE WIN FAST
REVIEW
OF SUIT CHALLENGING BUSH'S AUTHORITY TO WAGE WAR AGAINST IRAQ
PLAINTIFFS SAY INVASION WILL VIOLATE CONSTITUTION: "THE PRESIDENT IS NOT
KING"
-- HEARING BEFORE THREE-JUDGE PANEL SET FOR TUESDAY, MARCH 4 --
DOE V BUSH SEEKS TO BAR BUSH FROM STARTING WAR ABSENT CONGRESSIONAL
DECLARATION
BOSTON - A coalition of U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers from
seven
states and a dozen U.S. congress people won a rare expedited review by a
federal appeals court in Boston of a lawsuit challenging President
George
W. Bush's authority to wage war against Iraq.
The order, issued Tuesday, February 25 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit in Boston, came less than 24 hours after a federal
judge
had dismissed the case. The plaintiffs had appealed the ruling by
Federal
Judge Joseph Tauro and had filed a motion for expedited review before
the
appellate court.
The appellate court granted that motion yesterday and scheduled oral
argument before a three-judge panel for Tuesday, March 4. The lawsuit
seeks to prevent the President from ordering troops into Iraq until
Congress formally declares war. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit will hold oral argument on the plaintiffs'
appeal on Tuesday, March 4, at 9 a.m., at the U.S. Courthouse, 1
Courthouse Way, Boston.
"We are pleased that the federal appeals court recognizes that this case
deserves immediate review," says John Bonifaz, the plaintiffs' lead
attorney. "Judicial intervention is needed to ensure that the President
adheres to the Constitution before ordering troops into Iraq in what
would
be an illegal and unconstitutional war without a formal Congressional
declaration."
The coalition of U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and Members of
Congress filed the lawsuit on February 13, 2003, in federal district
court
in Boston seeking an injunction to prevent the President from launching
a
military invasion of Iraq, absent a congressional declaration of war.
U.S. Representatives John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich are leading the
Members of Congress who are serving as plaintiffs. On February 21,
2003,
six Members of Congress added their names to the lawsuit, doubling the
number of congressional plaintiffs suing the President, and nine parents
of U.S. soldiers also joined the case.
The original congressional plaintiffs are: Rep. John Conyers (MI-14);
Rep.
Dennis Kucinich (OH-10); Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2); Rep Sheila
Jackson Lee (TX-18); Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-7); and Rep. Jose E. Serrano
(NY-16).
The additional Members of Congress who joined the lawsuit are: Rep.
Danny
K. Davis (IL-7); Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (NY-26); Rep. Carolyn
Kilpatrick
(MI-15); Rep. Pete Stark (CA-13); Rep. Diane Watson (CA-32); and Rep.
Lynn
C. Woolsey (CA-6).
The parents in the case are from California, Michigan, Mississippi,
Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Washington State, and the District of
Columbia.
The lead plaintiffs in the case are three U.S. soldiers, including a
Marine currently stationed in the Persian Gulf.
The U.S. Justice Department is representing President Bush and Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the named defendants in the case.
The plaintiffs say an invasion will violate Article I, Section 8 of the
United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall have
Power…[t]o declare War." They argue that the resolution on Iraq that
Congress passed last October did not declare war and unlawfully ceded to
the President the decision of whether or not to send this nation into
war.
Their court papers cite historical records showing that the framers of
the
Constitution sought to ensure that U.S. presidents would not have the
power of European monarchs of the past to wage war.
"The President is not a king," says Charles Richardson, a plaintiff in
the
case whose son is a U.S. Marine now stationed in the Persian Gulf. "If
he
wants to launch a military invasion against Iraq, he must first seek a
declaration of war from the United States Congress. Our Constitution
demands nothing less."
Richardson, along with Nancy Lessin and Jeffrey McKenzie who are
plaintiffs in this case, is a co-founder of Military Families Speak Out,
an organization of people who are opposed to war against Iraq and who
have
family members in the military. Lessin adds: "A full and complete
Congressional discussion of the issues and all options must precede any
move towards war, because of the irreparable harm that would result."
"President Bush recently told journalists that whether we go to war 'is
not up to you, it's up to me,'" says Representative John Conyers. "The
Founding Fathers did not establish an imperial presidency with
war-making
power. The Constitution clearly reserves that for Congress."
HOW DOE V BUSH DIFFERS FROM OTHER SUITS CHALLENGING PRESIDENTIAL
AUTHORITY
TO WAGE WAR:
The plaintiffs argue that their case is distinguishable from the Vietnam
War cases and the case brought prior to the first Persian Gulf
War. They
point out that the cases challenging the executive branch's authority to
wage war in Vietnam were brought long after that war had started.
By the time the courts heard those cases, the U.S. Congress had passed a
series of military appropriations financing the war and had passed
legislation extending the military draft. Presently, Congress has not
passed any military appropriations to finance an invasion of Iraq and
has
not reinstated the draft.
In the case brought in 1990 by Members of Congress challenging the
authority of President Bush's father to wage the first Persian Gulf War,
the court ruled, contrary to Judge Tauro's ruling on Monday, that the
matter was not a political question and could be subject to judicial
review. However, in that case, the court denied the requested
injunction
solely on the grounds that war did not appear imminent at that time.
The Doe v Bush plaintiffs point out that, according to the President and
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the nation is weeks, if not days, away from
a
military invasion of Iraq. They argue that their case is far more ripe
than the 1990 case. They further argue that U.S. special operations
forces are already in Iraq, laying the groundwork for a massive military
invasion.
________________________
CONTACTS: Carol Klenfner (646) 495-4978
carol@andymorrisandcompany.com
Andy Morris (646) 495-4958
andy@andymorrisandcompany.com
John Bonifaz, (617) 524-2675 or (617) 529-4611 (cell)
Charles Richardson and Nancy Lessin, (617) 522-9323,
(617) 320-5301 (cell), (508) 277-9466 (cell) |
|
|