Congress Is Spineless

B

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
Why do presidents generally do whatever the fuck they want with respect to military engagements? Because they can. The latest installment is the House voting against authorizing military operations in Libya and then voting against defunding those operations. Spineless shits.

And this is an institutional problem, not a problem of Democrats or Republicans. Congress as a general matter refuses to assert its powers in this regard and consistently bitches about presidential overstepping but never does a thing about it.

I'm of the view that Congress should include language in every defense appropriations bill that no funds may be used to fund any operations not specifically authorized by an act of Congress, but that will never ever ever happen.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57711.html
 
Yurt said:
maybe they don't want a constitutional challenge to the WPA....
Click to expand...



Is that why 10 of 'em filed suit in DC federal court over a week ago, idiot?



"the lawsuit is an attempt to litigate the war powers of the U.S. Constitution, including Congress’ power to declare war and the president’s authority as commander in chief of the armed forces..."



http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/06/10-congressmen-file-suit-over-war-in-libya.html






Not exactly Mister Current Events on the legal news, are you, asswipe?



:lol:
​
 
Yurt said:
maybe they don't want a constitutional challenge to the WPA....
Click to expand...

the lawsuit they filed is meaningless. while lower courts may deign to look at it, the ussc is going to dismiss any decision on it whatsoever stating that it's a legislative issue and not up to the courts to decide. they've done that numerous times.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the lawsuit they filed is meaningless. while lower courts may deign to look at it, the ussc is going to dismiss any decision on it whatsoever stating that it's a legislative issue and not up to the courts to decide. they've done that numerous times.
Click to expand...



You could be right, but that doesn't mean the suit is frivolous. Nor can you predict the eventual outcome with certainty.


I think plaintiffs clearly do want to test the constitutionality of the WPA, which is what legal-eagle Yurtroll claimed wasn't happening.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the lawsuit they filed is meaningless. while lower courts may deign to look at it, the ussc is going to dismiss any decision on it whatsoever stating that it's a legislative issue and not up to the courts to decide. they've done that numerous times.
Click to expand...

scotus has said the WPA is a non justiciable issue?
 
Yurt said:
scotus has said the WPA is a non justiciable issue?
Click to expand...

I can't think of any case at all where congress has contested the constitutionality of a presidents actions, within or outside any given law, and the supreme court has taken up the case. All the cases that come to my mind given those circumstances is the USSC stating in no uncertain terms that their place is not to check the balance between the executive and legislative branch, specifically because the process of impeachment is congress' remedy.
 
Here is some historical perspective on Congressional War Powers Resolution lawsuits.




In the late 1990s, a number of lawmakers filed suit against President Bill Clinton's Administration for the use of air strikes against Serbia in the former Yugoslavia.
Similar to the Libya operation, these air strikes on Belgrade were conducted under the U.N.'s auspices.




The U.N. famously and mistakenly also bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during this action.During this time the president made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit in the War Powers Act.




The opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law.




Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Rep. Tom Campbell, R-Calif., and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the president.




They charged that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo.




The president noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the president, holding that the Congressional members lacked legal standing to bring the suit.




This decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000).




The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand.


Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2...t-congressional-case-war-powers#ixzz1QEtu3Vfk​
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I can't think of any case at all where congress has contested the constitutionality of a presidents actions, within or outside any given law, and the supreme court has taken up the case. All the cases that come to my mind given those circumstances is the USSC stating in no uncertain terms that their place is not to check the balance between the executive and legislative branch, specifically because the process of impeachment is congress' remedy.
Click to expand...

i see where you are coming from, makes sense...however, i am not sure scotus would refrain from taking the case based on justiciability, given, it is a constutional issue and scotus has original jurisdiction over constitutional issues. the WPA, imo, isn't simply an executive or congress issue, wherein they make a rule, decision that is in their power, rather, the WPA hits right at the core of constitutional powers, who controls the troops, the CIC or congress...?
 
the USSC can't hold the executive or legislative branch in violation of a law. They can strike a statute for being beyond the boundaries of the constitution, but that's it. As it stands, the constitution provides plenty of legislative authority to stop the executive office from continuing actions against the constitution, including impeachment. The courts are there specifically to provide the check against the executive/legislative branches from violation the constitution in regards to the people.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the USSC can't hold the executive or legislative branch in violation of a law. They can strike a statute for being beyond the boundaries of the constitution, but that's it. As it stands, the constitution provides plenty of legislative authority to stop the executive office from continuing actions against the constitution, including impeachment. The courts are there specifically to provide the check against the executive/legislative branches from violation the constitution in regards to the people.
Click to expand...

scotus can strike a statute, act and any law under their jurisdiction. the WPA is under their jurisdiction.
 
Yurt said:
scotus can strike a statute, act and any law under their jurisdiction. the WPA is under their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

I suggest you read campbell v. clinton then. you'll see more of where i'm going with regards to scotus and how they handle constitutional issues between executive and legislative branches.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I suggest you read campbell v. clinton then. you'll see more of where i'm going with regards to scotus and how they handle constitutional issues between executive and legislative branches.
Click to expand...

that is a great case, i was unaware of it.

what i take from the case is: if members of congress challenge an executive power that congress granted, then they lack standing. which makes sense and is the perfect non justiciable issue. the court in campell v. clinton, never ruled on the justiciability of deciding the constitutionality of the WPA. if, members of congress brought suit against the WPA as violating the constitution, i don't see how scotus can deny cert, unless they wimp out and claim congress can fix the problem by changing the law.
 
Yurt said:
that is a great case, i was unaware of it.

what i take from the case is: if members of congress challenge an executive power that congress granted, then they lack standing. which makes sense and is the perfect non justiciable issue. the court in campell v. clinton, never ruled on the justiciability of deciding the constitutionality of the WPA. if, members of congress brought suit against the WPA as violating the constitution, i don't see how scotus can deny cert, unless they wimp out and claim congress can fix the problem by changing the law.
Click to expand...

that's exactly what scotus should do. if congress writes a law that violates the constitution, it's rather silly to have congress sue itself to claim the law unconstitutional. the only way for congress to fix it is rewrite the law. the only way scotus would strike a statute is if someone else, like one of 'we the people' had standing to sue.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that's exactly what scotus should do. if congress writes a law that violates the constitution, it's rather silly to have congress sue itself to claim the law unconstitutional. the only way for congress to fix it is rewrite the law. the only way scotus would strike a statute is if someone else, like one of 'we the people' had standing to sue.
Click to expand...

unfortunately, scotus thinks "we the people" are faceless, nameless and lack standing. we can't even sue to see a presidential candidates constitutional qualificataions. standing, as decided by scotus, is very hard to get around, so if these members of congress believe they have a better chance, go fot it. because scotus has virtually destroyed our standing.
 
Yurt said:
unfortunately, scotus thinks "we the people" are faceless, nameless and lack standing. we can't even sue to see a presidential candidates constitutional qualificataions. standing, as decided by scotus, is very hard to get around, so if these members of congress believe they have a better chance, go fot it. because scotus has virtually destroyed our standing.
Click to expand...
Standing was indeed very difficult. one had to show substantial harm from a law, like being arrested, but recently BOND v. UNITED STATES has changed that.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?33218-the-9th-and-10th-Amendment-given-new-life.

Now, this probably won't do anything for contesting presidential candidates, but it sure helps with a lot of prohibitive laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top