Advertisement
A lawsuit brought by Rep. Dennis Kucinich and 9 other members of Congress against the Obama Administration - which alleged that the US involvement in the war on Libya was in violation of the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution - was dismissed by a Federal court judge for the District of Columbia late last month.
In its 23-page Decision, dated October 20th, granting the Administration's motion for summary dismissal, US District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2001, held that "...the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have standing — either in their capacity as Members of the House of Representatives or because of their status as taxpayers — to maintain this action."
Given that the Court found that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case, it didn't address the merits of the case - i.e., it never addressed the question of whether or not the President had the authority to conduct the war or, indeed, even the question of whether or not the intensive bombing of Libya represented the conduct of "hostilities."
President Obama had maintained that the six-month bombing campaign conducted in support of foreign and Libyan military forces did not constitute "hostilities" as required to invoke the War Powers Resolution, and was not a "war" under the Constitution, which reserves war powers to Congress. Under Federal court rules, any one of the Plaintiffs can appeal; a notice of appeal has to be filed and served within thirty days of the filing and service of a Notice of Entry of the aforesaid decision. Separately, there is another case – brought by an ordinary citizen, which is still pending. Mark Whitney, the plaintiff in that case (Whitney v. Barack Hussein Obama II, et al, US District Court, District of Columbia, Index # 1:11-cv-01409-RWR) claims standing on separate grounds than those claimed by the Kucinich plaintiffs.
In its 23-page Decision, dated October 20th, granting the Administration's motion for summary dismissal, US District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2001, held that "...the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have standing — either in their capacity as Members of the House of Representatives or because of their status as taxpayers — to maintain this action."
Given that the Court found that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case, it didn't address the merits of the case - i.e., it never addressed the question of whether or not the President had the authority to conduct the war or, indeed, even the question of whether or not the intensive bombing of Libya represented the conduct of "hostilities."
President Obama had maintained that the six-month bombing campaign conducted in support of foreign and Libyan military forces did not constitute "hostilities" as required to invoke the War Powers Resolution, and was not a "war" under the Constitution, which reserves war powers to Congress. Under Federal court rules, any one of the Plaintiffs can appeal; a notice of appeal has to be filed and served within thirty days of the filing and service of a Notice of Entry of the aforesaid decision. Separately, there is another case – brought by an ordinary citizen, which is still pending. Mark Whitney, the plaintiff in that case (Whitney v. Barack Hussein Obama II, et al, US District Court, District of Columbia, Index # 1:11-cv-01409-RWR) claims standing on separate grounds than those claimed by the Kucinich plaintiffs.