View source for Doe v. Bush

'''''Doe v. Bush''''' [[Case citation|323 F.3d 133]] ([[1st Cir.]] [[2003]]) was a [[United States Court of Appeals]] decision that affirmed the [[constitutionality]] of the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]].  The [[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002]] was challenged by "a coalition of US soldiers, parents of US soldiers, and Members of Congress" prior to the invasion to stop it from happening.<ref name="DoeVBushSum">[http://www.mfso.org/article.php?id=334 Summary of the case: John Doe I v. President Bush] Retrieved 8/7/2007.</ref>  They claimed that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal.  Judge Lynch wrote of their argument, "They base this argument on two theories. They argue that Congress and the President are in collision -- that the President is about to act in violation of the October Resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion -- that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war."<ref name="DoeVBushOpinion">[http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf Doe v. Bush Opinion by Judge Lynch 3/13/2003] Pages 3,4,10,23,25,26. Retrieved 8/7/2007.</ref>

The case was first dismissed on February 24th, 2003 by [[U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts]] Judge Joseph Tauro.  It was appealed to the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]].  On March 13th, a three-judge panel affirmed the decision to dismiss the complaint.<ref name="DoeVBushSum"/>  The opinion was written by Judge [[Sandra Lea Lynch|Sandra Lynch]]:
<blockquote>
''An extreme case might arise, for example, if Congress gave absolute discretion to the President to start a war at his or her will... Plaintiffs' objection to the October Resolution does not, of course, involve any such claim. Nor does it involve a situation where the President acts without any apparent congressional authorization, or against congressional opposition... To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress.''
</blockquote>
She also cited ''Massachussetts v. Laird'' [[Case citation|451 F.2d 26]] ([[1st Cir.]] [[1971]]), which similarly found that the Vietnam War was constitutional.  Lynch concluded that the Judiciary could not intervene, because there was not a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress at that time.<ref name="DoeVBushOpinion"/>  On March 17th, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing.  Their petition was denied the next day.<ref name="DoeVBushSum"/>  Iraq was invaded on March 20th.

==See Also==
*[[2003 invasion of Iraq]]
*[[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002]]
*[[Ehren Watada]]
*[[Legality of the Iraq War]]
*[[UN Charter]]
*[[War of aggression]]

==References==
{{refs}}

[[Category:United States Court of Appeals cases]]
[[Category:Causes and prelude of the 2003 Iraq conflict]]