grassrootspeace.org November 5, 2007: This
website is an archive of the former website, traprockpeace.org,
which was created 10 years ago by Charles Jenks. It became one of the
most populace sites in the US, and an important resource on the antiwar movement,
student activism, 'depleted' uranium and other topics. Jenks authored virtually all of its web pages and multimedia content (photographs, audio, video, and pdf files. As the author and registered owner of
that site, his purpose here is to preserve an important slice of the
history of the grassroots peace movement in the US over the past decade.
He is maintaining this historical archive as a service to the greater
peace movement, and to the many friends of Traprock Peace Center. Blogs
have been consolidated and the calendar has been archived for security
reasons; all other links remain the same, and virtually all blog content
remains intact. THIS SITE NO LONGER REFLECTS THE CURRENT
AND ONGOING WORK OF TRAPROCK PEACE CENTER, which
has reorganized its board and moved to Greenfield, Mass. To contact Traprock
Peace Center, call 413-773-7427 or visit its site.
Charles Jenks is posting new material to PeaceJournal.org,
a multimedia blog and resource center.
|
 
Books of the Month
The
War on Truth
From
Warriors to Resisters
Army of None
Iraq:
the Logic of Withdrawal
|
March 18, 2003
Doe v. Bush
STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFFSÍ ATTORNEY JOHN BONIFAZ
At this extraordinary moment in United States history, the judiciary has completely abdicated its responsibility to uphold the integrity of our Constitution and to uphold the rule of law. The CourtÍs decision today represents a serious erosion of the rule of law. As the President embarks on trampling on the United States Constitution and launching a first-strike war without congressional authority, this Court has chosen to stand on the sidelines.
From the inception of this case, we have argued that, if the October Resolution passed by the United States Congress is to be read as constitutional, then it must be read as conditioning any war on United Nations Security Council approval. The President is proceeding to send this nation into war without UN approval, in direct conflict with the United States Congress.
In its March 13, 2003 opinion, this Court stated that this claim was not, at that time, fit for judicial review. The Court stated: ñTo evaluate this claimƒ[w]e would need to assume that the Security Council will not authorize war, and that the President will proceed nonetheless.î On March 17, 2003, we filed a petition for rehearing before this Court based on the emergence of these facts. With these facts, it is now clear that the President and Congress are in direct dispute on the momentous decision of sending this nation into war. Today, the Court finds that ñthe case continues not to be fit for judicial review,î stating that ñCongress has taken no action which presents a ïfully developed dispute between the two elected branches.Íî This conclusion completely contradicts the CourtÍs ruling on March 13. The facts as they now exist present precisely that ñfully developed dispute between the two elected branchesî which the Court deemed necessary to review our claim. Today, the Court now avoids ruling on that claim with a circular argument.
History will mark the courage that the soldiers, parents of soldiers, and Members of Congress demonstrated in this case. In the face of an unconstitutional and illegal war, they stood up to fight for basic democratic principles. It is deeply unfortunate that this Court chose not to stand with them.
Page created March 10, 2003 by Charlie Jenks