Federal Judge Shoots Down Congress' Challenge To Obama's Actions In Gaddafi's Libya

WASHINGTON -- As news spread of Muammar Gaddafi's demise on Thursday, a federal judge in Washington shot down a lawsuit by 10 members of the House of Representatives claiming that President Obama's Libyan intervention is against the law.

In the suit, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and his co-plaintiffs alleged that Obama went to war without congressional declaration or approval as required by constitutional and statutory law. But rather than squarely address these claims, Judge Reggie Walton ruled that the plaintiffs, whether as members of Congress or as taxpaying citizens, simply had no standing to sue.

Walton's opinion in Kucinich v. Obama was dictated by precedents set by "a line of cases that have all but foreclosed the idea that a member of Congress can assert" his, well, membership in Congress "to maintain a suit against a member of the Executive Branch." Simply put, legislators cannot claim that the president's actions have sullied Congress as an institution. Instead, they must claim that the president has personally harmed them or totally nullified their votes in the legislature.

The representatives argued that such vote nullification occurred when Obama ignored the House's majority vote against a resolution that would have authorized his continued commitment of U.S. troops to NATO's intervention in Libya. But the resolution depended on the classification of the NATO mission as a war -- something President Obama assiduously avoided. Accordingly, Judge Walton determined that the "President's actions, being based on authority totally independent" of the rationale driving the House's vote, "cannot be construed as actions that nullify a specific Congressional prohibition."

Walton also used a footnote to blast Kucinich for pursuing claims that a judge on the same court rejected in 2002's Kucinich v. Bush, which protested President George W. Bush's unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. "While there may be conceivably some political benefit in suing the President and the Secretary of Defense," Walton wrote, "in light of shrinking judicial budgets, scarce judicial resources, and a heavy caseload, the Court finds it frustrating to expend time and effort adjudicating the relitigation of settled questions of law."

The representatives' lawyer, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, took to his blog to say that "the decision holds that a critical part of the Constitution cannot be effectively enforced in the courts."

In a statement disagreeing with Judge Walton's dismissal of their case, Rep. Kucinich and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) reiterated the merits of their claims. "This lawsuit is not just about checking executive power," the statement said, "but also about securing the right of Members of Congress to defend the constitutionally required balance of power in court."

The ten representatives are now considering an appeal to the D.C. Circuit.

Comments

[Barbara Fry]

12:50 AM on 10/22/2011

I wonder who paid for this frivolous law suit. And will they waste more on an appeal?

[Barbarian At The Gate]

07:04 PM on 10/21/2011

I thought this article from Politifact was interesting. It was posted June 22nd, 2011 but a small section actually predicted the future:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jun/22/are-us-actions-libya-subject-war-powers-resolution/

"Even those experts who believe the U.S. is indeed engaged in hostilities think it's unlikely that courts will be willing to intervene in a high-stakes disagreement over the meaning of the separation of powers. It's more likely the courts would throw out the case on technical grounds, they said."

In the end it was not a matter of whether or not the U.S. was engaged in hostilities towards Libya the Judge ruled that the U.S. involvement in the NATO coalition intervention in Libya was not classified as a War.

[garyg210]

10:19 PM on 10/21/2011

You keep posting this propaganda, but you are not telling the truth. The decision simply held that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to sue. As a lawyer with more than 30 years of experience I can assure all who are still bothering to read this thread that this does not mean that the judge made any ruling at all that President Obama did or did not go to war, let alone whether he acted illegally or not. There is an enormous difference between saying that someone does not have legal standing to bring suit versus a decision on the merits.

[Barbarian At The Gate]

09:11 AM on 10/22/2011

I quoted that one paragraph from the politifact article because the complaint was dismissed, it never went to trial. The Federal Government, the defendants, motioned to dismiss the lawsuit and they won. The Judge is not giving merit to the case of answering any of the political questions in the complaint. That would have to be for someone else to decide.

However, the judge's reasoning for dismissing the case gives weight to my statement. The Judge decided that the 10 Congressmen did not have standing to sue as legislators or taxpayers.

One of the plaintiff's complaints was that Obama's actions nullified the House's votes regarding H.J. Resolution 68 on June 24, 2011. H.J. Resolution 68 would have given Obama Congressional authorization to wage War for 1 year after signing. The House voted against it. The Judge decided that for Obama to nullify the votes he would have to engage in military operations in Libya as if Congress voted for the legislation and the President had Congressional authority to wage War. The Judge decided that Obama's actions were independent of H.J. Resolution 68 because he was using his Constitutionally granted powers as Commander-in-Chief and as an Executive Officer and he was not waging War.

[joedas]

06:43 PM on 10/21/2011

It's not the job of a US President to intervene in another country's exposed treatment of its citizens, but with this divided Congress, it runs amok. Just look at the intervention in Iraq over the falsely US immediate action in that country and the resultant mess it put upon the world.

A quickie vote after the intervention is not conclusive since no one wants to go after a President.

[therealone]

05:58 PM on 10/21/2011

Traitors, plain and simple.

[disgusted48]

05:54 PM on 10/21/2011

kucinich should be more concerned about the jobs issue, especially coming from ohio. why isn't all over the air waves bashing the repubs about their stand on the jobs legislation.

[joedas]

06:53 PM on 10/21/2011

Why should Kucinich be concerned only with the jobs problems? American jobs are going overseas to please the wealthy's ?RIGHT? to increase their profits by stifling the American middle class jobs. ALL conservatives and liberals should discuss this discrepancy. For some reason, I dunno, why there is a lid on the overseas jobs? No one wants to comment if it is in the interest of the country or in the wealthy?

[Kara Kramer]

04:38 PM on 10/21/2011

Has Kucinich explained his connection to Saif Gaddaffi properly yet?

[Kache]

04:32 PM on 10/21/2011

In 1801 Congress was filled with members who had - voted on the ratification of the Constitution in their State legislatures, debated that ratification, and in some cases had authored the document itself. In that year, President Jefferson dispatched the U.S. Navy to Tripoli with the intent of destroying the government there. Over the course of that war, known as the Barbary War, our navy engaged in numerous battles with Barbary warships, laid siege to Tripoli and burned it. Oh, and Jefferson overlooked telling Congress about it. The first any members of Congress knew of it was when Jefferson mentioned it in dinner conversation to a Senator two weeks after the ships had departed. Did they impeach Jefferson? They didn't even discuss it. To the founders, the war powers reserved for Congress applied only to the federalizing of the State militias to be commanded by the skeleton federal officer corp - the US government did not maintain an army of it's own. But it did maintain a Navy, and Jefferson used it, at will, without any assumption of a need for the consent of Congress. Indeed, that Congress bothered itself only once on the issue - to pass financing for the war, two years into the war.

[vetxcl]

04:30 PM on 10/21/2011

Just think of all the lawyers Rep. Kucinich is keeping employed !!

[Boatnmaniac]

04:27 PM on 10/21/2011

The problem is that the Constitution does not define what "war" is. Nor are there any broadly accepted definitions of what a war is anywhere. We can't go back and change the past but for the future Congress and the President should reach some sort of agreement on what constitutes a war. Then if the President authorizes a military engagement in breach of that agreement there might be some merit to lawsuits like this. Until then, it's just a bunch of worthless bickering that produces nothing of value.

[justin viau]

05:25 PM on 10/21/2011

You just contradicted yourself. This"worthless bickering" produced your insight and I agree that there should be an agreement between congress and the pres. on the definition of war.
So technically it cant be worthless.

[Boatnmaniac]

06:54 PM on 10/21/2011

I was talking about the bickering by Congress, not the people who are posting here. Their bickering is pointless if they don't try doing something positive to resolve this gap in understanding of what constitutes a war. Filing suit is not the way to go about this. The Constitution established a process for making change and Congressmen, of all people, should understand and follow that process.

[exclintonsupporter]

04:14 PM on 10/21/2011

They hate it...they hate it...they hate it...

Got to eat more of your WHEATIES...GOTP...Obama is NO JOKE!!!

[vetxcl]

04:11 PM on 10/21/2011

lost

[vetxcl]

04:11 PM on 10/21/2011

And our President can send advisors into Africa, ala Viet Nam. And he can lose my vote by signing three "Free" Trade Agreements that ship even more jobs overseas.
Odd how the addition of advisors in Africa came about the same time that our President announced there was no funding for the CLASS provisions of the health care reform act. Must be just coincidental.
Time to look at who's giving the President significant campaign donations. Oh, wait, the un-supreme court "solved" that problem by allowing sizeable donations to be undisclosed.

[therealone]

06:00 PM on 10/21/2011

You can always vote the alternative.

[exclintonsupporter]

04:03 PM on 10/21/2011

I'm sure it's the PRINCIPAL...but here's the thing...

No boots on the ground
No lose of US Soilders life

Mission Accomplished....

[ronp121]

03:59 PM on 10/21/2011

If I were the President I would lock myself in a closet and not come out till next election. Knowing that everything I did or have tried to do since taking office is wrong according to every republican out there. Even his latest achievement in Libya, he walked out and gave a little speech. Bush for gosh sake lands on a aircraft carrier dressed as if he had won the war single handily in Iraq with another eight years left to fight. Talk about grandstanding. Glad I'm not President and he is. Good job Mr. President.

[GoDems2012]

03:55 PM on 10/21/2011

It's within their constitutional powers but it's still another reason why I never thought about supporting a D. Kucinich or R. Paul type candidate. They are better in the Senate or House casting votes and filing lawsuits. No way they could make the tough calls as C-I-C.

[vetxcl]

04:00 PM on 10/21/2011

t-h-a-n filing lawsuits?

[GoDems2012]

04:05 PM on 10/21/2011

Not sure what's confusing about what I wrote.