In 2008, the pacifistic New Jersey Peace Action organization--represented by Rutgers law professors and students--sued President Bush for violating the Constitution by failing to secure prior Congressional approval. Earlier this month, New Jersey Federal District Judge Jose Linares dismissed the complaint without reaching the merits precisely for the reasons previously outlined. The key quote is from pages 16-17:
Rather than leaving to Congress the issue of whether to declare war and thereby invoke various corresponding obligations, Plaintiff's would have this Court second-guess Congress's decision to authorize something short of "war." This is plainly not the judiciary's role. . . Congress is fully-equipped to analyze the treaties, policy considerations, and accompanying obligations that would follow from a declaration of war and to choose a separate path accordingly. The fact that the United States is engaged in military action absent a declaration of war does not automatically invite the judiciary's analysis as to whether that action is "constitutionally sanctioned."The order also cited (at 9-12) lack of sufficient standing in view of the fact that no judicial remedy could redress Plaintiffs' alleged injuries, rending any judicial declaration an "advisory opinion"--impermissible under the Constitution's Article III.
As the Wall Street Journal's Ashby Jones concludes, liberals fought the war and "the war won." Chortle.