|
''Doe v. Bush'', 323 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2003), was a court case challenging the constitutionality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The case was dismissed, since the plaintiffs failed "to raise a sufficiently clear constitutional issue."〔(Summary of the case: John Doe I v. President Bush ) Retrieved 8/7/2007.〕 The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was challenged by "a coalition of U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and members of Congress" prior to the invasion to stop it from happening.〔 They claimed that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal. Judge Lynch wrote of their argument, "They base this argument on two theories. They argue that Congress and the President are in collision -- that the President is about to act in violation of the October Resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion -- that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war."〔(Doe v. Bush Opinion by Judge Lynch 3/13/2003 ) Pages 3,4,10,23,25,26. Retrieved 8/7/2007.〕 The case was dismissed on February 24, 2003 by Judge Joseph Tauro of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The petitioners appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On March 13, a three-judge panel affirmed the decision to dismiss the complaint.〔 The opinion was written by Judge Sandra Lea Lynch:
Lynch also cited ''Massachusetts v. Laird'' 451 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1971), which similarly found that the Vietnam War was constitutional. Lynch concluded that the Judiciary could not intervene, because there was not a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress at that time.〔 On March 17, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing. Their petition was denied the next day.〔 Iraq was invaded on March 20. ==See also== *Ehren Watada *Legality of the Iraq War *United Nations Charter 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Doe v. Bush」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|