1st Circuit judges roll over, play dead,
wag tails for executive branch masters
Three judges of the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals looked at
John Doe v. George W. Bush, No. 03-1266 and caved on it Thursday.
Doe v. GWB was brought not by John Doe, but the mother of a U.S. serviceman and a group of House Democrats seeking to force through the courts that the president not launch his war on Iraq without further authority from Congress, which solely holds the constitutional power to declare war.
The three circuit judges -- Lynch, Cyr and Stahl -- offered little in the was of reasoning but much in the way of hemming and hawing and "delivering" the rulings their masters expected of them.
Here is their summary of action:
For those who ordinarily skip reading court opinions, this might be a good one to make an exception. I believe it will in years to come serve as a minor footnote in the history of how America sold its soul.
The buzzing sounds you hear are Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall whirling in their graves.
wag tails for executive branch masters
Three judges of the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals looked at
John Doe v. George W. Bush, No. 03-1266 and caved on it Thursday.
Doe v. GWB was brought not by John Doe, but the mother of a U.S. serviceman and a group of House Democrats seeking to force through the courts that the president not launch his war on Iraq without further authority from Congress, which solely holds the constitutional power to declare war.
The three circuit judges -- Lynch, Cyr and Stahl -- offered little in the was of reasoning but much in the way of hemming and hawing and "delivering" the rulings their masters expected of them.
Here is their summary of action:
The case before us is a somber and weighty one. We have considered these important concerns carefully, and we have concluded that the circumstances call for judicial restraint. The theory of collision between the legislative and executive branches is not suitable for judicial review, because there is not a ripe dispute concerning the President's acts and the requirements of the October Resolution passed by Congress. By contrast, the theory of collusion, by its nature, assumes no conflict between the political branches, but rather a willing abdication of congressional power to an emboldened and enlarged presidency. That theory is not fit for judicial review for a different, but related, reason: Plaintiffs' claim that Congress and the President have transgressed the boundaries of their shared war powers, as demarcated by the Constitution, is presently insufficient to present a justiciable issue. Common to both is our assessment that, before courts adjudicate a case involving the war powers allocated to the two political branches, they must be presented with a case or controversy that clearly raises the specter of undermining the constitutional structure.
For those who ordinarily skip reading court opinions, this might be a good one to make an exception. I believe it will in years to come serve as a minor footnote in the history of how America sold its soul.
The buzzing sounds you hear are Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall whirling in their graves.
<< Home