Today, I have the honor of representing ten members of the United States House of Representatives in challenging the constitutional basis for the Libyan War — and the underlying claims made by President Obama. These members include Democrats and Republicans from across the political spectrum. They share a belief that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution expressly requires the authorization of Congress before a president can commit the nation to war. The lawsuit will be heard in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. We filed this afternoon and held a press conference with the members in front of the courthouse. A copy of the complaint (which will be heard by Judge Reggie Walton) is below.
This challenge goes beyond Libya and challenges the claim by the Administration that the President has the inherent authority to order combat operations without the approval or declaration of Congress. The Plaintiffs in this action include the second most longest standing member of Congress, John Conyers, as well as leading members from both parties. The members are Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx).
This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief. In addition to challenging the circumvention of express constitutional language, it will also challenge arguments that no one (including members of Congress) has “standing” to submit this question to judicial review. These members will ask the federal district court for review of the constitutional question and for recognition that the Constitution must allow for judicial review of claims of undeclared wars under Article I.
I am being assisted in this case by a team including Jodie Cheng, David Fox, Kyle Noonan, Eric Sidler, and Geoff Turley (no relation to Professor Turley).
We are deeply honored to represent these courageous members of Congress in their defense of important constitutional limitations on executive power. While there are many uncertain questions under the Constitution, this is not one of them. The Framers spoke repeatedly and forcibly of their desire to bar presidents from committing the nation to war without congressional authorization and inserted an express limitation into Article I. The last few years have vividly demonstrated the dangers that the Framers sought to avoid in dividing the war powers between the Executive and Legislative branches. Despite their sharp ideological differences, these members are bond by deep faith in the Constitution and a sense of responsibility in defending its provisions. We shall their concerns and are eager to advance their claims in the Judicial Branch in this lawsuit.
As in past high-profile cases, I will have to be circumspect in my public comments once the case is filed.
Here is the filed complaint: Libyan Complaint;pdf
Jonathan Turley
Just after I had given up on the spineless critters in Congress. Good luck Prof. Turley.
Yeah. Revolting, nutjob stuff. Still, they were duly elected and they along with some other real pips have glommed on to a valid constitutional problem. It doesn’t give any of their other nonsense a veneer of respectability and it doesn’t make this problem any less valid.
I, like you, seriously doubt that a lot of the people on that list entered into this challenge after an agonizing debate about the possibility of creating constitutional infirmity or the fairness of only ever counghing these bipartisan objections up when a Democratic president in office. I do not have the same doubts about their legal team.
kimberley, Some of these guys are sponsors of the birther bill.
Swarthmore mom,
I had the same reaction to seeing the names on that list but these questions would naturally come from outside the mainstream of political ambition and propriety. This constitutional tension arises not just from a grossly overpowered executive branch but also from a grossly servile Congress (which are both things that proper politics has all but insisted on).
I would have made the same decision Obama did, even knowing I was pushing the limits of constitutional authority. I would not allow an overtly hostile, opposition-led Congress to chain me, helpless but ultimately answerable, into a front row seat of another genocidal atrocity like it did to Rwanda and Clinton.
Maybe if Congress bore the weight again of these decisions, the incompetence of our political machinery to form emergency humanitarian consensus would self-correct. But even if it doesn’t (I’m not holding my breath) at least moves like this make it clear to those in future need that our Constitution only allows a US President to do so much before the braking mechanisms kick in, so they know to use the time under wing wisely.
Its a great ideal…
JT,
Let me add my thanks to you for your participation in this effort. It was very encouraging to read about this action and knowing the level of expertise you will bring.
The legitimacy of US military action been suspect on too many occasions, but none more so than when our forces are mobilized by a warmaking dictator. Let’s hope this ends well.
I’m surprised it has taken this long for members of Congress to act. Best of luck, Prof. Turley. Regardless of outcome, this is an important challenge.
Swarthmore – I don’t think this is necessarily an anti-war challenge motivating individual Repreentatives. The challenge is first and foremost about clarifying limits on Executive Powers, which in theory, should be consistent with Tea Party interests. Now it might be fair to question whether these members would proceed with this challenge were a member of their own camp in the White House. But, political opportunism aside, the question of whether the President has Constitutional authority to take this type of action unilaterally is important to our understanding of Separation of Powers.
Dr. Turley,
Thank you.
It’s overdue.
Swarthmore,
Well, I’m guessing most of the Republicans are being partisan hacks (I exclude Ron Paul, he’s pretty consistant in his anti-war/everything the government ever does stance). However, I don’t think you can say that about either Conyers, Kucnich or JT. I’m much more interested in what motivates them.
Gyges You are right, but I still wonder what the teabaggers motives are. Don’t remember Burton as being anti-war before.
Of these, Bartlett, Capuano, Coble, Johnson and Jones all voted for the Iraq war authorization.
Swarthmore,
Yup, and the ACLU represented the KKK when they sue for their right to hold a protest. The law is the law even if some of the people who want it upheld are jerks.
This group includes seven members of the Tea Party.
“[I]t will also challenge arguments that no one (including members of Congress) has “standing” to submit this question to judicial review.”
That seems patently ridiculous.
Although I support the rationale for emergency intervention in Libya, I also support the balance of powers. This work needs to be done and I’m grateful it’s being addressed.
Good luck Prof. Turley and team! I will be watching this with great interest!
And Dan Burton wanted to invade Mexico…………….
All the wars need to end. If my taxes can’t be spent on my family and for my community then I don’t want them spent overseas.