U.S. Court Rejects Appeal to Block War

[MrTuffPaws]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20836-2003Mar13.html

So, when does the situation get to the proper stage of “ripeness” for the courts to take action.

To me this is nothing but a show of fear on the courts behalf to act upon the checks and balances in place.

Your thoughts?

[Revtim]

I don’t understand the “ripeness” issue, but the fact that Congress passed the resolution to support war is close enough to a declaration to satisfy the spirit of the Constitution, IMO. If a court found it wasn’t close enough, then they’d simply declare war. The main point is, there’s no war unless Congress approves, and the primary purpose of preventing a single man from having the power is satisfied.

[Robb]

MrTuffPaws, the link requires registration. Could you give us another link or some more information, such as the court involved?

[Revtim]

The registration is minimal, it doesn’t even ask your name, but here’s another link:

Breaking International News & Views

[Robb]

The lack of a fully developed dispute between the two elected branches, and the consequent lack of a clearly defined issue, is exactly the type of concern which causes courts to find a case unripe.

It will be ripe when there is a dispute.

Because the branches are not in opposition, there is no necessity of determining boundaries. Should either branch be opposed to the continuance of hostilities, however, and present the issue in clear terms, a court might well take a different view. This question we do not face.

(quoting Massachusetts v. Laird, 451 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1971)).
When Congress and the President head in different directions, the courts might get interested.

[Robb]

The opinion is at the court’s site, under opinions. It is 03-1266. the opinion is mostly about why they aren’t deciding it now and what might get tehm involved in the future.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

Even if they did eventually get past the ripeness issue, I doubt they’d find against the administration. Though the court correctly points out that the political question doctrine is used infrequently, it seems to me that the decision to go to war is something that doctrine was tailor made for. See Baker v. Carr, cited in the court’s opinion at footnote 7:

Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

Making decisions regarding warkmaking is something the courts are spectacularly ill-equipped to do. It is a decision properly left to the political branches of government.

[MrTuffPaws]

“Making decisions regarding warkmaking is something the courts are spectacularly ill-equipped to do. It is a decision properly left to the political branches of government.”

So do you feel that if both political branches our acting in violation of the constitution then it is okay?

What gets me, is that the court will delay actions to stop illegal military action until after the said military action begins. Then they will only speak up if one of political branches is in disagreement?

The least the courts could do is force the other branches to act within the limits of the constitution. (In reality, the least they could do is nothing like they are doing now.)