|
In my last post, I was giving Barak the benefit of the doubt.
As it turns out...he doesn't need it..
repost and clarification courtesy of ripple..addressed to a poster ripping on O Bama..
Actually, it WAS litigated
There are two definitions for the term ‘litigate’:
1. To contest in legal proceedings
2. To engage in legal proceedings.
I think passing a piece of legislation could certainly be considered a legal proceeding, so that’s where I was coming from with my last post.
If you prefer the first definition, which I interpret to mean a court challenge, that occurred as well.
From the library of Congress:
www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31715.pdf
“Subsequent to enactment of the authorization but prior to the initiation of
military action, twelve members of the House of Representatives, along with a
number of U.S. soldiers and the families of soldiers, filed suit against President Bush
seeking to enjoin military action against Iraq on the grounds it would exceed the
authority granted by the October resolution or, alternatively, that the October
resolution unconstitutionally delegated Congress’ power to declare war to the
President. On February 24, 2003, the trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds it
raised a nonjusticiable political question; and on March 13, 2003, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, albeit on different grounds. The appellate
court stated that, although the mobilization of U.S. forces clearly imposed hardships
on the plaintiffs soldiers and family members, the situation was too fluid to determine
whether there was an irreconcilable conflict between the political branches on the
matter of using force; and, thus, the separation of powers issues raised by the suit
were not ripe for judicial review. On the delegation issue, the appellate court ruled
that the Constitution allows Congress to confer substantial discretionary authority on
the President, particularly with respect to foreign affairs, and that in this instance
there was no “clear evidence of congressional abandonment of the authority to
declare war to the President.” “he appropriate recourse for those who oppose war
with Iraq,” the First Circuit concluded, “lies with the political branches.” See Doe
v. Bush, 240 F.Supp.2d 95 (D. Mass. Feb. 24, 2003), aff’d, 322 F.3d 109 (1st Cir.
March 13, 2003), rehearing denied, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4830 (1st Cir. March 18,
2003).”
The fact that the lead-up to the Iraq war hasn't been litigated to your liking doesn't make Obama's statement inaccurate.
I respect your disagreement about an immediate withdrawal vs. phased redeployment. It's certainly a valid debate and one that's still going strong on the Hill- especially within our own party. The fact that Obama has a view that differs from yours (or the candidate you support) doesn't make his motives insincere.
Again, you mislead by claiming that Obama was trying to paint Kerry/Feingold as "cut and run" dems. That simply is not the case. In fact, if I might get back to my earlier point, one of the co-sponsors of that particular resolution voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq to begin with. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting something, but you appear to be giving that individual a free pass, while laying the blame on Obama for having a different opinion about how to fix a mess he didn't create- and one he predicted and strenuously opposed, in fact.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
