It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House of Representatives member sues to stop Bush

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Quoted from:
www.iht.com...


Lawsuit seeks to stop Bush from war on Iraq
AP AP Friday, February 14, 2003
BOSTON

A group of U.S. soldiers, parents of soldiers and six U.S. House members filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday seeking to stop President George W. Bush from launching a war against Iraq without a declaration of war from Congress.
.
Representative John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit say a resolution passed by Congress in October did not specifically declare war and unlawfully ceded the decision to Bush.
.
Conyers quoted the U.S. Constitution as saying only Congress has the power to declare war. "Get it? Only Congress," Conyers said Thursday at a news conference in Washington. BOSTON A group of U.S. soldiers, parents of soldiers and six U.S. House members filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday seeking to stop President George W. Bush from launching a war against Iraq without a declaration of war from Congress.
.
Representative John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit say a resolution passed by Congress in October did not specifically declare war and unlawfully ceded the decision to Bush.
.
Conyers quoted the U.S. Constitution as saying only Congress has the power to declare war. "Get it? Only Congress," Conyers said Thursday at a news conference in Washington.



I'm grateful to Conyers for doing this. I've written him, saying that he's not my Representative, but that I appreciate and support what he's doing and asking him what else can be done by people NOT in his state to help his effort. We'll see what his staff replies.

But I'm tired of sitting by and watching Bush start WWIII. I can't stop him, but maybe a lawsuit can.




posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Byrd, it's not like Bush is starting WW3, nor should we NOT attack Iraq.

I'm all for getting congress to first declare war, but if they won't, we'll just have to pulverize saddam anyways.

But I do think we should stick to the constitution, screw the UN, our government doesn't answer to them, they answer to us, and so the President, be him Gore Bush or George Washington, should have only have to ask congress to declare war, and if such action is taken, we should thumb our noses at the UN all we want.

However, I refuse to let our congress back down on this, because as you can see lying bastard liberals are more out to just stop Bush, then they are to do the right thing (destroy Saddam's regiem and build up a democratic government over there.)

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason

I'm all for getting congress to first declare war, but if they won't, we'll just have to pulverize saddam anyways.

But I do think we should stick to the constitution,


I think the point is that pulverizing Saddam without Congress's declaration is against the Constitution.

So, if Congress does not declare war, you can EITHER pulverize Saddam OR stick to the Constitution.

Not both.



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Duh, I'm saying that this is a time where we NEED to remove saddam, and if congress doesn't vote for war, then we'll just have to do it unconstitutionally.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I'm not really bothered by the fact you apparently view the Constitution as optional rules.

Sadly, I think Bush views them that way too. That does bother me.

Thank you for clarifying you're willing to dump the Constitution if it doesn't let you do what you want to. Perhaps Bush could just argue bombing Iraq comes under 'pursuit of happiness'?



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Byrd, it'd be fine if you and Conyers and whatever other congressional coward is against protecting us were the only ones that would risk breathing chemicals or biological weapons that Hussein has and is making to use against the Great Satan, but you know what, it's my family as well. So, since you and Conyers and the others cannot be the only ones to breathe deep the gather mist, who cares? Bush is doing what needs to be done, he's doing it regardless of polls or attitudes, and he is is doing it because he's a leader, not a poll-followerer firing million dollar rockets at aspirin factories to cover scandals. As a matter of fact, if Hussein did decide to save his skin and comply and cooperate totally, it'd be because of the threat of a righteous attack, not because of cowardly people and enemies of this nation.

Congress, by the way, has already authorized the president to pursue this war on terror, the war is being conducted, and authorization for each battle or each theater is not necessary.

[Edited on 15-2-2003 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 09:06 AM
link   
i'm in no way up on all the particulars of this situation. but, isn't Iraq a different target than the war on terror? they have yet to prove that Saddam is in leauge with OBL. if what Mr. Powell showed was all they have, the evidence is sadly lacking. seeing as how the back bone of his case was a camp in Kurdish controlled Iraq and we could blow it to pieces anytime we wish. and when asked why we haven't, Mr. Powell started back peddling. saying something like "i won't discuss what is or isn't being done." what ???

either way, Dubya should put it before congress and let them vote for it...they will and then all this lawsuit business can go away. the constitution can't be violated and you don't put nearly 200,000 troops on the ground and then say...oops, my bad. yall can come back home.

i think we are too invested now to stop it now and congress knows that. i'm just worried about what comes next. we keep promising the Iraqi's a democracy, but that's just a dream as we see in the country of Kabal-i mean Afghanistan.



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 11:30 AM
link   
TC, not to be rude or anything but I'd like to know where you stand on the blatent disregard for the Constitution that has been repeatedly blowing chunks out of the White House? I *do* support the concept of fighting against terrorists, but don't you think that Bush's Bully Boys have been (& will continute) to go too far? Do you actually support the idea of losing your Constitutional Rights in the pursuit of eliminating terrorism?

According the the Homeland Security documentation (& the new proposals being called "Homeland Security 2"), anyone who has committed any crime or is even suspected of *contemplating* any crime can be yanked out of their homes, all properties confiscated (yes, even including your entire Estate), stripped of citizenry, held forever with no trial or even the release of information that they *have* incarcerated you, literally *tortured* for confession or information (after all, you'd have no citizens' Rights at that point), then either unceremoniously executed or deported? Is this truly what legacy you'd like to hand down to your children?

IMO, the fight against terrorism needs to start on those who're running the government...When I gave my oath on joining the military, it included the oath to fight against all enemies "foreign & domestic". The "enemy" of America and American values is now in Washington D.C.

What my basic question is; What is your stand & what do you intend to do about it?



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Yeah, M-D, of course I'm concerned with what is going to be the end result in reference to the constitution.

The paranoid, never-trust-anyone side of me says that the shredding of the constitution through executive orders, contracts with the U.N. and judicial legislation was nothing more than a setup for a later date.

I don't see any unnecessary decisions coming out of the White House that are forevermore destroying the constitution in light of the current events. Considering the enemy would have it that there be no united states of America at all to hand down to my children, I understand the need for certain decisions.

I also understand that the Homeland Security does not rip people off the streets to be held without bond, tortured and have their citizenship removed and then the criminal deported or killed. If that be the case, there's plenty of common criminals that are lucky that they live in a country with an incompetent government.

Relax, is my first thought to share with you, but, on second thought, I will tell you as I told B-T: I finally have a president that spoke of the same values and beliefs that I have. I am hoping beyond all hope that this guy actually pulls through and accomplishes the things I want him to accomplish. This may cause me to miss some important signs that I would not have missed if Clinton were still in power. That being the case, be vigilant for me, huh?

Before you go off to D.C. to wage armed war against George et al, what are the American values that he violates? When did you take your oath? Was it when Clinton was in office? As Bush doesn't hold a candle to the blatant violations commited by Clinton, I assume you are corresponding from a prison for an attempt on Bill's life I haven't heard about? Nothing has surfaced that amounts to a hill of beans about Bush. Merely speculation, name-calling and differences in opinion on policy.

[Edited on 15-2-2003 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Heh! I took my oath in 1986...
However, I still hadn't "woken up" about the actual truth until only a few years ago. It was a slow process & still continues. I didn't have the ability to plumb the internet to find the truth to back up my "newly-awakened" views at that time.

But hasn't it become obvious that the government (whatever administration) has kept this country in a constant "state of emergency" for at least the past 50 years? The they've been chipping away at the Constitution & our Rights of Citizenry for at least that long? Hasn't it become obvious that Bush is accelerating that trend to the point where the Constitution will have less value than toilet paper if he's allowed to continue?

Unless Bush is stopped & the government seriously restructured & downsized, we're going to have a Nation of Tyrants to give to our children for a legacy?

No, I don't condone the idea of going up to D.C. with a mob of millions, all armed with guns...I'd like to see it done peacefully, with The People ousting those crooks that've taken over the majority & continue to breed *their* future generations into being crooks. I'd like to see the masses of citizens finally open their eyes to what's been going on behind our backs all of this time. I'd like to see us become, once again, A States United for the good of all citizens. Let's redefine the general stereotype that equates politicians as "another organized crime syndicate".

However, the first step is to make the People *aware*...Conyers & others like him are actually taking steps to make sure that happens, by standing up to crooks like Bush & His Bully Boys, to prove that *it can be done*...If we don't act too late, that is. However, if any of this is to succeed, we *must* unite as a Nation against the government that oppresses it.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Failed to do so

3 trillion dollars later

meh



new topics




 
0

log in

join