Jackson appears on Crossfire

Suit challenges Bush war authority

Friday, February 14, 2003 Posted: 1:13 PM EST (1813 GMT)

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.: "Congress unconstitutionally ceded its power to the president to declare war when he wants to."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A group of lawyers, soldiers and parents went to court in Boston to ask a judge to issue an injunction against President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to keep them from attacking Iraq unless Congress declares war.

The group argues that a congressional declaration of war is necessary before taking military action. Is this lawsuit political grandstanding or a legitimate way to voice opposition to a potential war?

One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Illinois, joined "Crossfire" hosts Robert Novak and James Carville to defend the suit.

NOVAK: Congressman Jackson, appreciate you being here. The Congress of the United States has passed a resolution authorizing the president to use all force necessary to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. That was passed by the Congress. What's your case?

JACKSON: ... Members of Congress and the president of the United States have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution is very clear that Congress shall have the power to declare war.

And Congress did not pass a declaration of war. Congress unconstitutionally ceded its power to the president to declare war when he wants to, and that's what we're taking to federal court.

CARVILLE: Congressman Jackson, this is my problem. People look at the Democratic Party, and it looks like we don't stand for the military [and] we don't stand up to people. I doubt the wisdom of this war. I don't have a problem with the same legality. But doesn't this just feed into the perception that, when people go to Baghdad or we file a suit that we're just against the use of military power no matter what the reason is?

JACKSON: James, you're raising a political question -- a political question that should be debated within the Congress of the United States.

Does the Congress of the United States under the framers' intent have the specific power of declaring war? Most recently the president said he [could] go to war when he wants to. He doesn't need the U.N. He doesn't have to go back to Congress to seek specific authority to go to war.

Well that's not quite what the Constitution of the United States says.

CARVILLE: Well Congressman, they certainly don't talk about the U.N., but we went to war in Korea, we went to war in Bosnia, we went to war in Somalia. Any number of times we've used troops in Panama, we've used troops in the Dominican Republic and Grenada. And time and time again, none of these have been with the benefit of a congressional declaration of war.

JACKSON: Well, wait a second.

CARVILLE: Were all of these other things illegal and we should go back and sue every other president that we had before?

JACKSON: No, James. Actually, it works like this. Under specific federal interpretation, Article I, Section VIII says that when Congress accedes by passing appropriations bills, or when Congress passes, as in the case of the Vietnam War ... then Congress and the president are essentially linked in their process of prosecuting the war. And Congress cannot withdraw without specific intent by the president to withdraw.

However, what is unique about this lawsuit, which makes it different from any other lawsuit ever filed, is that this lawsuit is being filed before the prosecution of a war. And the Supreme Court and federal courts have left it open that the political doctrine is subject to judicial intervention if in fact we can show -- if in fact we can show that Congress has not authorized this war, and we believe we can.

NOVAK: Congressman, the Congress acted in October to authorize the president, but I just want to give you a little history lesson, if I can be so bold, that the last time the United States declared war against anybody was against a couple of the axis satellite powers a few days after Pearl Harbor. That was the last time it was done. Are you saying that all of the wars when we fought to save South Korea from communist aggression were unconstitutional?

JACKSON: No. What I'm saying is ...if Congress accedes [to President Bush] by drafting American citizens and if Congress agrees by supporting a ... resolution, then, in fact, Congress is linked with the president of the United States.

But in this case, the Congress of the United States has not declared war against the people of Iraq. Bob, this has nothing to do with starting or stopping a war. This is a question of authorization and process. The president must come back to the Congress.

NOVAK: I want you give me a straight answer to this, please, Congressman. Abraham Lincoln waged war against the confederate states of America without ever giving a declaration of war. He immediately called for volunteers. Congress wasn't even in session. Was that unconstitutional?

JACKSON: Well that's a civil war. I think that's a different circumstance. And President Lincoln and that Congress, the 32nd Congress -- or 33rd Congress -- they had to wrestle with those questions. That's not the question for the 108th Congress.

CARVILLE: Congressman Jackson, my colleague, Mr. Novak, says that the trial lawyers are behind this suit. ... Is this just people on their own doing this?

JACKSON: The plaintiffs in this case are men and women who serve in the armed services, who find themselves in the Middle East right now without specific constitutional and congressional authorization. Also, the parents of some of those servicemen who are concerned.

___

Robert Byrd Seeks Senate Resolution
Edward Kennedy Seek Senate Resolution
Full Test Joint Resolution

Return to Home Page - The Modern Tribune