|
Pietsch v. Bush (the first one)
Mahorner v. Bush (the first one)
Lowry v. Reagan
Baker v. Carr
Callan v. Bush (the second one)
The courts have made and confirmed the ruling that the decision to go to war is expressly held by the non-judicial branches of government, and is a political, not constitutional decision (using those terms technically here - see Justice Brennan's definition of "political decisions" in Baker v. Carr). They have refused to intervene on questions of constitutionality, defensive vs. offensive, proper declaration, and impropriety of the “War Powers” act.
Yet m v. m states that the court has the power (and the mandate) to intervene where a law is made that is, and I believe the term is "repugnant", to the constitution. They have not done so. They also hold the ability to review the actions of those acting as “Members of the State” – agents of a particular office, to declare their constitutionality. They have not done so. On the contrary (John Doe v. George W. Bush), they have refused to even review the cases.
You can state your opinions forcefully, and that's fine. But please acknowledge that they are opinions, and not constitutional mandates.
And, remember, there are some fairly sharp minds that hold opinions contrary to yours – and their opinions get published in fancy books with embossed titles, and studied by every law student in the country. Also, they wear fancy robes. That doesn’t always make them right. But it should give you pause.
-sm
|