BRIEF FILED BY 10 Members of Congress against President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates for Violation of War Powers Act
Kay. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DENNIS KUCINICH )
Member, U.S. House of Representatives ) CASE NUMBER:
2445 Rayburn House Office Building ) JUDGE:
Washington, D.C. 20515, ) DECK TYPE: General Civil
)
WALTER B. JONES )
Member, U.S. House of Representatives )
2333 Rayburn House Office Building )
Washington, D.C. 20515, )
)
JOHN CONYERS, JR. )
Member, U.S. House of Representatives )
2426 Rayburn House Office Building )
Washington, D.C. 20515, )
)
ROSCOE BARTLETT )
Member, U.S. House of Representatives )
2412 Rayburn House Office Building )
Washington, D.C. 20515, )
)
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO )
Member, U.S. House of Representatives )
1414 Longworth House Office Building )
Washington, DC 20515, )
)
DAN BURTON )
Member, U.S. House of Representatives )
2308 Rayburn House Office Building )
Washington, D.C. 20515, )
)
HOWARD COBLE )
Member, U.S. House of Representatives )
2188 Rayburn House Office Building )
Washington, D.C. 20515, )
)
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR. )
Member, U.S. House of Representatives )
2207 Rayburn House Office Building )
Washington, DC 20515, )
)
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON )
Member, U.S. House of Representatives )
1207 Longworth House Office Building )
- 2 -
Washington, D.C. 20515, )
)
RON PAUL )
Member, U.S. House of Representatives )
203 Cannon House Office Building )
Washington, DC 20515, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
BARACK OBAMA )
President of the United States )
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. )
Washington, D.C. 20500, )
)
ROBERT GATES )
Secretary of Defense )
1400 Defense Pentagon )
Washington, D.C. 20301, )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
Plaintiffs Dennis Kucinich, Walter B. Jones, John Conyers, Jr., Roscoe
Bartlett, Michael E. Capuano, Dan Burton, Howard Coble, John J. Duncan, Jr.,
Timothy V. Johnson, and Ron Paul (hereinafter “the Plaintiffs”),
all members of Congress, bring this Complaint in their official capacities and
as taxpayers and allege as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the
Plaintiffs and the country from a stated policy of Defendant Barack Obama,
President of the United States, whereby a president may unilaterally go to war
in Libya and other countries without the declaration of war from Congress
required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution.
2. This action further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to protect
the Plaintiffs and the country from the violation of the War Powers Resolution
resulting from the Obama Administration’s established policy that the
President does not require congressional authorization to use military force in
wars like the one in Libya.
3. This action further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to protect
the Plaintiffs and the country from a policy that a president may commit the
United States to a war under the authority of the United Nations without
authorization from Congress.
4. This action further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to protect
the Plaintiffs and the country from a policy that a president may commit the
United States to a war under the authority of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) in violation of the express conditions of the North
Atlantic Treaty ratified by Congress.
5. This action further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to protect
the Plaintiffs and the country from a policy that a president may use funds,
previously appropriated by Congress, for unconstitutional and unauthorized wars
in Libya or other countries.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1331 (2006), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (2006), 28 U.S.C. §§
1361 and 1651, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S.
Constitution.
7. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (e).
8. This Court has the authority to render injunctive and declaratory relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202.
THE PARTIES
The Plaintiffs
9. Roscoe Bartlett represents the Sixth District of
Maryland and has served in the United States House of Representatives since
1992. He is the Chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of
the House Armed Services Committee; a senior member of the Science, Space and
Technology Committee as well as a member of the Small Business Committee.
Throughout his ten terms in office, Representative Bartlett has remained one of
the leading congressional members on matters relating to defense and scientific
issues. He is a member of the Republican Party.
10. Dan Burton represents the Fifth District of
Indiana and has served in the United States House of Representatives since
1983. He served as the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform and currently serves as the Chairman of the House Foreign
Affairs Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia. He is also a Senior Member on the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Throughout his fifteen terms in
office, Rep. Burton has been a leading figure in the investigation of executive
power and its abuse. Rep. Burton is a proud veteran of the U.S. armed forces,
having served in the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Reserves. He is a member of the
Republican Party.
11. Michael E. Capuano represents the Eighth
District of Massachusetts and has served in the United States House of
Representatives since 1984. He is a member of the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the House Committee on Financial
Services. He also serves on the House Democratic Leadership team as a member of
the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. Throughout his seven terms in
office, Rep. Capuano has been a leading voice for international human rights,
including aid to the Darfur region of Sudan. Rep. Capuano received his law
degree from Boston College Law School in 1977 and is a member of the
Massachusetts bar. He is a member of the Democratic Party.
12. Howard Coble represents the Sixth District of
North Carolina and has served in the United States House of Representatives
since 1984. He is a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and is the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law. He
also serves on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as
well as the Subcommittee on Aviation, the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation, and the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. In over
a decade of service in Congress, Rep. Coble has been a leading voice on
constitutional issues and legal reform. He received his law degree from the
University of North Carolina and his Doctor of Laws from Elon University. Rep.
Coble has proudly served five-and-a-half years in the U.S. Coast Guard and
twenty-two years in the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve. He is a member of the
Republican Party.
13. John Conyers, Jr. represents the Fourteenth
District of Michigan and has served in the United States House of
Representatives since 1965. He has served as Chairman of both the House
Committee on Government Operations (now renamed Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform) and the House Committee on the Judiciary. He is currently
the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and serves on the
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. He is the
second longest-serving incumbent member of the House. Throughout his
twenty-three terms in Congress, Rep. Conyers has been a leading voice in the
protection of civil liberties, civil rights, and human rights in addition to a
host of other international and domestic issues. He received his law degree
from Wayne State University. Rep. Conyers is a proud veteran of the U.S. armed
forces, having served in the National Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers during the Korean War. He is a member of the Democratic Party.
14. John J. Duncan, Jr. represents the Second
District of Tennessee and has served in the United States House of
Representatives since 1988. He is a member of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and serves as Chairman of the Highways and Transit
Subcommittee. He is also a member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
He received his law degree from The George Washington University and previously
served as a judge. Rep. Duncan’s distinguished legal career led Lincoln
Memorial University to name its new law school after him. He has been a leading
voice against foreign wars and for compliance with the doctrine of separation
of powers under the U.S. Constitution. Rep. Duncan is a proud veteran of the
U.S. armed forces, having served in the U.S. Army National Guard and the U.S.
Army Reserve. He is a member of the Republican Party.
15. Timothy V. Johnson represents the Fifteenth
District of Illinois and has served in the United States House of
Representatives since 2000. He is a member of the House Committee on
Agriculture and serves as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Rural Development,
Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture. He also serves on the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In addition to his leadership
on agricultural issues, Rep. Johnson has been a leading voice on constitutional
issues, including opposing excesses in national security laws. He received his
law degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. He is a member of
the Republican Party.
16. Walter Jones represents the Third District of
North Carolina and has served as a member of the House of Representatives since
1995. He is a member of the House Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Financial Services. Throughout his sixteen years in Congress, Rep.
Jones has been a leading voice for military personnel and a leader on military
issues. He introduced the War Crimes Act of 1996, which allows prisoners of war
to bring their persecutors to justice in U.S. courts. He was also the author of
language in the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act that guarantees
treatment for returning troops suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) from the ongoing wars. He is a member
of the Republican Party.
17. Dennis Kucinich represents the Tenth District of
Ohio and has served as a member of the United States House of Representatives
since 1996. He is the Ranking Member of the Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus
Oversight and Government Spending Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee. He is also a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.
He has served as an official United States delegate to the U.N. Convention on
Climate Change (1998 and 2004). Throughout his eight terms in Congress, Rep.
Kucinich has been a leading voice on worker rights, civil rights and human
rights. He is a member of the Democratic Party.
18. Ron Paul represents the Fourteenth District of
Texas and has served as a member of the United States House of Representatives
since the 1970s, with one break from 1984 to 1997, when he relinquished his
seat to return to his medical practice. He is a member of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. He is
also a member of the Committee on Financial Services, the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, and a member of the
Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade. Dr. Paul has been a
leading voice for limited government and constitutional rights. Dr. Paul has
proudly served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force. He is a member of the
Republican Party.
The Defendants
19. Barack Obama is the forty-fourth President of
the United States. He is being sued in his official capacity as Commander and
Chief and Chief Executive of the Executive Branch, including but not limited to
the Departments of Defense and State as well as the Central Intelligence
Agency.
20. Robert Gates is the Secretary of Defense and is
being sued in his official capacity. Defendant Gates is responsible for the
entire Department of Defense, including its subagencies. In that capacity, he
is tasked with maintaining the forces and operations in the Libyan War.
Definitions
21. African Union. The African Union is an organization of fifty-three African
states (including Libya) established on July 9, 2002. It is the successor to
the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The African Union opposed the no-fly
zone enforced by the United States as the prelude to the current combat
operations.
22. Libya. The nation of Libya is an independent sovereign nation located in
the Maghreb region of North Africa. It is the fourth-largest nation in terms of
land in Africa and has 6.4 million citizens. It has the highest literacy rate
of any nation in North Africa and the fourth-highest GDP per capita in Africa.
It borders Egypt, Sudan, Chad, Algeria, Tunisia, and Niger. It also holds the
world’s tenth-largest supply of proven oil reserves. Long dominated by
Western powers, Libya became an independent country in 1951. Libya is a member
nation of the United Nations and the African Union and is represented by
diplomats appointed by the Libyan government.
23. The Libyan Civil War. Following violent responses by Libyan police to
peaceful protests against Muammar Gaddafi’s government on February 15,
2011, an armed conflict broke out between forces loyal to Gaddafi and rebels
seeking to depose Gaddafi and hold democratic elections. On February 27, 2011,
anti-Gaddafi rebels formed the National Transitional Council, which declares
itself to be the “sole representative of all Libya.” On March 23,
2011, the Council established a transitional government headed by Interim Prime
Minister Mahmoud Jibril. The Council refers to the Libyan state as the Libyan
Republic, while the Gaddafi government refers to it as the Great Socialist
People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
24. Libyan Government. The center of the Libyan government is its capital,
Tripoli, which held 1.7 million of its citizens before the civil war. The
country has been ruled by Muammar Gaddafi since 1969. Since 1977, Libya has
been called the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. In 1979,
Gaddafi relinquished the title of Prime Minister. The government has an
executive ruling structure headed by a twelve-member Revolutionary Command
Council. The national government is divided into twenty-two Sha’biyat
districts. Those districts are further divided into Basic People’s
Congresses. Citizens elect representatives to the Basic People’s
Congresses and regional Sha’biyat People’s Congresses as well as
the National General People’s Congress. The Libyan government still
controls the capital and various areas outside of the capital while rebels
currently control some of the cities outside of Tripoli. The Libyan government
has a history of repression and abuse, including the use of excess force in
suppressing peaceful protests in 2011.
25. The Libyan War. For the purposes of this complaint, the term “Libyan
War” means U.S. involvement in combat operations in Libya. Although the
Administration has insisted that these operations do not amount to a war, the
Plaintiffs assert that the U.S. is engaged in war under domestic and
international definitions of war.
26. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO is a multinational
alliance formed by the North Atlantic Treaty signed on April 4, 1949.
Headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, NATO is committed to the mutual defense of
NATO member nations in response to an attack by another country. The
organization includes twenty-eight NATO members and twenty-two “partner
countries.” Under Article IV of the Treaty, “[t]he Parties agree
that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America
shall be considered an attack against them all.”
27. Rebel Alliance. Rebel factions in Libya have agreed to form a National
Transitional Council. While the Council has neither forces in nor control of
Tripoli, it claims Tripoli as its capital. The rebel forces have been actively
assisted by the United States and NATO with both ground personnel and close
combat support missions.
28. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. On March 17, 2011, the United
Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973 to endorse the creation of a
no-fly zone and the use of “all means necessary” to protect
civilians within Libya.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
29. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution provides
in pertinent part that “[t]he Congress shall have power . . . [t]o
declare war.”
30. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution states that “[n]o
money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations
made by Law.”
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Libyan War
31. On March 19, 2011, at approximately 3:00 p.m. EDT, President Obama ordered
U.S. forces to attack the armed government forces of Libya.
32. Before attacking the government of Libya, President Obama did not seek or
receive a declaration of war from Congress.
33. Before attacking the government of Libya, President Obama did not seek or
receive approval of Congress in any form.
34. Subsequent to the start of military operations in Libya, the Obama
Administration stated that, as a policy, the President did not consider himself
bound to consult with Congress or receive its approval for military operations
like those ordered in Libya.
35. U.S operations in Libya now include all of the classic elements of a war,
including but not limited to close combat support, bombing of Libya’s
capital and key Libyan military assets, and commitment of U.S. personnel to
ground operations to assist the rebel forces in the Libyan civil war.
36. The cost to the United States of the Libyan War now exceeds $750 million
and has resulted in the loss of U.S. aircraft in combat operations.
37. The Supreme Court has found that even intermittent naval engagements can
constitute “war.” Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 37,
39 (1800) (Moore, J.) (describing conflict between U.S. and French ships as
“war”); id. at 40 (Washington, J.) (“It
may, I believe, be safely laid down, that every contention by force between two
nations, in external matters, under the authority of their respective
governments, is not only war, but public war.”).
38. The Libyan operations include efforts to kill Libyan leader Gaddafi and
force a victory on the side of the rebels aligned with the United States and
NATO.
39. Recently, the Libyan rebels have been accused of war crimes by U.N.
investigators, including but not limited to torture. Libya: UN Accuses
Both Sides Of War Crimes, BBC News (June 1, 2011), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13622965.
The Involvement of NATO in the Libyan War
40. On March 31, 2011, NATO officially took over command of the military
operations in
Libya, including command of U.S. forces.
41. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty provides as follows: The Parties
agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in
Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and
consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack accurs,
each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence
recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the
Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert
with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of
armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic
area. North Atlantic Treaty art. 5, Apr. 4, 1949, 63 Stat. 2241, 34 U.N.T.S.
243 (emphasis added).
42. For the purpose of Article 5, the North Atlantic Treaty defines
“armed attack on one or more of the Parties” as an armed attack
either (1) “on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North
America” or (2) “on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the
Parties. Id. art. 6(1).
43. Libya is not a signatory or participating member of NATO.
44. Libya did not attack the United States or any NATO member.
45. Libya has not been cited as a threat to the United States or any NATO
member.
46. Article 11 of the North Atlantic Treaty requires that it “shall be
ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their
respective constitutional processes.” Id. art. 11.
47. During hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1949 on
the proposed North Atlantic Treaty, Secretary of State Dean Acheson testified
that the Treaty would “not mean that the United States would
automatically be at war if one of the other signatory nations were the victim
of an armed attack . . . because [u]nder our Constitution, the Congress alone
has the power to declare war.” North
Atlantic Treaty: Hearings Before the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations, 81st Cong. 11 (1949).
48. The Administration never received the approval of Congress for committing
U.S. military forces to the NATO operation in Libya.
49. The President of the United States and Secretary of Defense still hold
ultimate command authority over U.S. troops operating under NATO command.
50. U.S. units in the Libyan operations remain under immediate U.S. command in
the field.
51. The President has the authority to withdraw all U.S. troops from the
theater of war and to cease support of the operations.
52. Indeed, Norway (a NATO member) is withdrawing its support for air
operations in Libya. Bjoern H. Amland, Norway to Quit Libya
Operation by August, Associated Press, (June 9, 2011) available
at http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/10/norway-to-quitlibya-operation-by-august/ .
53. Germany (a NATO member) declined to support the Libyan mission and has
indicated support only in a post-war Libya. Laura Meckler & Carol E.
Lee, U.S., German Leaders Discuss Aid for Libya,
Wall St. J. (June 8, 2011),http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304906004576371410462089584.html .
54. According to public reports, U.S. personnel with Army Special Forces units
and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are on the ground in Libya to assist
the rebel forces. Interview by Bill O’Reilly with Ret. Col. David Hunt,
U.S. Army, and Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer,
on The O’Reilly Factor (Mar. 24, 2011).
55. In discussions with rebel leaders, Obama Administration officials have
stated a willingness to commit even greater levels of U.S. support and
involvement. Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, Press Briefing (May 11,
2011).
56. As noted below, NATO has now expanded its operations to helicopter attacks
to support rebel forces and other close combat operations.
Evolving U.S. Rationales for Libyan War
57. President Obama has confirmed that the Libyan War is not a response to a
direct threat to the United States or even an effort to combat terrorism.
58. Indeed, on March 28, 2011, President Obama described the Libyan civil war
as one of the “times . . . when our safety is not directly threatened,
but our interests and our values are.” President Barack Obama, Address to
the Nation on Libya (Mar. 28, 2011).
59. The U.S. actions against Libya began in February 2011 when the
Administration imposed economic sanctions on the Libyan government.
60. On February 18, 2011, President Obama squarely denounced the Libyan
government by “condemn[ing] the use of violence against peaceful
protesters” and affirmed that Libyans “have certain universal
rights including the right to peaceful assembly.” President Barack Obama,
Statement on Violence in Bahrain, Libya and Yemen (Feb. 18, 2011).
61. On February 23, 2011, President Obama delivered a speech that again stated
the interest of the United States in supporting the “universal rights of
the Libyan people.” President Barack Obama, Remarks on Libya (Feb. 23,
2011).
62. In the February 23, 2011 speech, President Obama publicly
stated his consideration of all possible forms of intervention in the Libyan
civil war, announcing that he had asked his subordinates “to prepare the
full range of options that we have to respond to this crisis.”
Id.
63. On February 25, 2011, the Obama Administration imposed economic sanctions
against Libya, including seizing the property and property interests of Gaddafi
and other senior officials of the Libyan
government. See Letter from President Barack Obama to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate (Feb.
25, 2011).
64. In his February 25, 2011 letter to Congress, Obama explained that he was
acting pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C.
§ 1701 (2006), which grants the president a range of powers to deal with
threats he declares “national emergencies.” Id.
65. While first enforcing a no-fly zone, the U.S. soon began bombing Libyan
assets such as airfields, armored forces, and strategic sites.
66. The Administration and its allies later began close combat support and open
assistance of the rebels in their ground operations.
67. Most recently, Western operations (with U.S. support) have included efforts
to kill Gaddafi and have succeeded in killing members of his family.
68. The Administration also reportedly committed U.S. personnel on the ground,
including Special Operations troops, as early as March 2011 to work with Libyan
rebel forces in combat operations. See e.g., Mark Mazzetti and
Eric Schmitt, C.I.A. Agents in Libya Aid Airstrikes and
Meet Rebels, N.Y. Times: Africa (Mar. 30, 2011), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html.
69. On February 26, 2011, the U.N. Security Council—pursuant to its
enforcement authority under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter—adopted
Resolution 1970, which instituted an arms embargo against Libya, froze the
personal assets of Libya’s leaders, and imposed a travel ban on certain
senior Libyan officials. S.C. Res. 1970, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1970 (Feb. 26,
2011).
70. On March 17, 2011, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, which
authorized U.N. member states and regional organizations “to take all
necessary measures . . . to protect civilians and civilian populated areas
under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including
Benghazi.” S.C. Res. 1973, 4, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1973 (Mar. 17, 2011).
71. Additionally, Resolution 1973 called for the establishment of a
“no-fly zone” over Libyan airspace designed to protect civilians,
and authorized U.N. member states and regional organizations “to take all
necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on
flights.” Id. 6, 8.
72. The Resolution, however, mandated that such measures should not include
“a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of
Libyan territory.” Id. ¶ 4 (emphasis added).
73. As of March 31, 2011, NATO air forces had conducted 4,886 combat
sorties.
74. A U.N. resolution does not abrogate or change the obligation of President
Obama to obtain a declaration of war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of
the Constitution.
75. The Obama Administration has denied that the Libyan operations are a war
and, on March 24, 2011, White House Spokesman Jay Carney stated that the
Administration had defined these combat operations as “a time-limited,
scope-limited military action.”
76. “Time-limited, scope-limited” military actions are not
referenced in the U.S. Constitution or the constitutional convention
debates.
77. In the month preceding this filing, U.S. and NATO forces carried out some
of the heaviest bombardments of Tripoli of the entire war. See NATO
Aircraft Pound Tripoli; U.S. Envoy Courts Rebels, CNN.com (May 24, 2011,
6:44 PM),
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/24/libya.war/index.html .
78. In the week preceding this filing, the intensity of NATO operations in the
Libyan War increased.
79. This month, Western forces launched extensive helicopter attacks on Libyan
forces and engaged in direct combat operations against Libyan ground
forces. See Jonathan Beale, Libya: UK Apache
Helicopters Used in Nato Attacks, BBC News (June 4, 2011), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13651736 .
80. On June 4th, 2011, NATO began deploying attack
helicopters. E.g. Ken Sengupta, Nato Strike Force
in Libya Enjoys Quick Success with Apache Gunships, Guardian (Jun.
5, 2011, 21:22 BST), http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/05/nato-libya-apachegunships success.
81. Other countries have objected to the use of NATO forces in support of the
rebels and what is viewed as a move toward the introduction of NATO ground
troops. Russia: NATO ‘One Step’ from Land War in
Libya, Associated Press, (Jun. 5, 2011),available
at http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/06/05/general-libya-russia_8500637.html .
82. NATO itself has announced that it anticipates combat operations to continue
and potentially extend into September 2011. London Backs NATO Role in
Libya, UPI.com (Jun. 2, 2011, 1:35 PM), http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/06/02/Londonbacks-NATO-role-in-Libya/UPI-68071307036138 .
83. While the Libyan war expands, the Administration has also launched strikes
in Yemen against rebel forces opposing the Yemeni government. U.S.
Planes Hit Yemeni Militants, Associated Press, (June 9,
2011), available athttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9690122 .
Funding and Conferral for the Libyan War
84. At the time of the filing of this Complaint, the Obama Administration had
yet to ask Congress for specific funding for the Libyan War.
85. At the time of the filing of this Complaint, the Obama Administration had
not yet sought a declaration of war from Congress or even congressional
approval for the Libyan War.
86. The Administration appears to have funded the war in large part through use
of general funds appropriated by Congress.
87. According to the Department of Defense, the Administration spent roughly
$550 million in the first ten days of the war.
88. That figure includes about $340 million for munitions—mostly a large
number of Tactical Land Attack Cruise Missiles for use against Libyan
forces.
89. In addition to the $550 million spent before March 28, 2011, U.S. costs
included an F- 15E aircraft at a cost of $79.24 million—raising total
expenditures to $630 million.
90. These funds have been made available through “cash flowing,” by
which the Department of Defense reallocates funds originally dedicated for
other purposes.
91. While these funds may allow for broad discretionary spending, the
Administration has asserted the right to use these funds for an unauthorized
war.
92. Congress has set aside funds for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
93. OCO funds can only be used only for “contingency operations directly
related to the global war on terrorism.”
94. The Administration has never claimed that the Libyan War was commenced as
an antiterrorism peration.
95. To the contrary, President Obama has repeatedly stated that U.S. military
operations in Libya are part of an effort to protect the “universal
rights” of Libyans.
96. The Administration appears to have expended over $750 million for the
Libyan War from discretionary funds without any authorization to use these
funds to prosecute a war in Libya.
97. The appropriations legislation in effect when the Libyan War began required
that OCO funds be used “for contingency operations directly
related to the global war
on terrorism.” See Further
Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011, Pub. L. No. 112- 4, § 167, 125
Stat. 6 (emphasis added).
98. That restriction remained in place in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-10, div. A., 125 Stat. 38, which
became law on April 15, 2011 and funds the Department of Defense through the
end of the fiscal year.
99. In addition to any discretionary funds, the Administration has sought to
use $25 million under the Foreign Assistance Act to protect Libyan civilians
“as a result of an unforeseen emergency.” Memorandum from the
President on Request for Funds for Libya Under the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (Apr. 26, 2011).
100. The over $750 million used to fund the Libyan War has circumvented the
need to seek authorization of funding from Congress until the war has been
prosecuted for months.
101. Moreover, the Anti-Deficiency Act states in part that: (a)(1) An officer
or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia
government may not—
(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount
available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;
[or]
(B) involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment of
money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law.
31 U.S.C. § 1341 (2003) (formerly codified at 31 U.S.C. § 665(a)
(1950)).
102. While an exception for emergencies is allowed under 31 U.S.C. § 1342,
it has been narrowly construed.
103. As noted below, congressional leadership has stated that it has not
approved the Libyan War expenditures and is not certain of the source of the
$750 million used to support the undeclared war.
War Powers Policies
104. The operations in Libya are supported by a clear policy of the Obama
Administration that committing U.S. military personnel to indefinite combat
operations in a foreign civil war is not a “war” for constitutional
purposes.
105. The Administration has further advanced a policy that it does not have to
secure authority to commence or prosecute such a war in Libya and can rely on
the inherent powers of the President under Article II of the Constitution.
- 21 -
106. The Administration has further advanced a policy that it can use federal
funds for an
undeclared war without the direct approval of Congress.
107. These policies are evident not only in the public announcements and
statements of the
Administration but also in the President’s statements.
108. In a March 21, 2011 report to Congress, President Obama claimed authority
for U.S. military action in Libya pursuant to his “constitutional
authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief
Executive.” Letter from President Barack Obama to Speaker of House of
Representatives and President Pro Tempore of Senate (Mar. 21,
2011), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/ 2011/03/21/letter-president-regarding-commencement-operations-libya
.
109. This policy is also evident in the April 1, 2011 opinion of the Justice
Department’s office of Legal Counsel (OLC), entitled “Authority
to Use Military Force in Libya.”
110. The OLC opinion clearly states that no congressional approval is required
under the President’s “broad constitutional power” to commit
to combat operations in countries like Libya.
111. The OLC opinion further states that a U.N. Security Council resolution
expands the power of the President because the President has a distinct
obligation to enforce such U.N. resolutions.
112. Finally, the OLC opinion states that the War Powers Resolution allows the
President to use force for up to sixty days without congressional approval and
does not require a declaration of war.
113. The conditions cited by President Obama for intervention in the Libyan
civil war are present in various other countries.
114. In Syria, for example, the government has (during the same period as the
Libyan operations) used tanks and aircraft to kill hundreds of protesters.
115. This carnage in Syria continues unabated at the time of this
filing. See, e.g., Syrian Forces Kills At Least 34
Protesters at Anti-Government Protest, Associated Press,
June 3, 2011, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/03/syrian-forces-kill-34-protesters .
116. As in Libya, where the use of military forces against towns was cited as
the basis for U.S. intervention, Syria has launched attacks with tanks and
military forces against towns, killing many citizens. Syrian Tanks
Attack Towns That Held Protests, Associated Press, May 29,
2011, available at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/29/syriantanks-attack-towns-held-protests .
117. Syria has a history of the massacre of civilians with such forces,
including the destruction of Hama which resulted in the killing of between
10,000 and 25,000 people. Syrian forces Kills At Least
34 Protesters at Anti-Government Protest, Associated Press, (June 3,
2011), available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/03/syrian-forces-kill-34-protesters .
118. In the latest attacks, Syria has bombarded cities—just as Libya
threatened to do before the U.S. intervention. Liam Stack, Syrian
Security Forces Bombarded the Restive Northern Town of Jisr
al-Shoughour, N.Y. Times, June 11, 2011.
119. President Obama’s policy that he may unilaterally order combat
operations in any ountry to protect the “universal rights” of
foreign citizens is capable of repetition in countries other than Libya.
120. Indeed, given the denial of universal rights in various countries like
Syria and Yemen, such intervention would appear likely in the future.
121. The decision to intervene in a civil war and expend what is now
approaching $1 billion at a time of great economic stress is one that raises a
host of concerns for our political system.
122. This is a question upon which the Framers required Congress to be heard,
and ultimately required Congress’s consent to any such “foreign
entanglement.”
War Powers Resolution
123. The War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548, requires the
President to inform and ultimately receive the consent of Congress to commit
U.S. personnel to armed conflicts.
124. Section 2 of the statute expresses Congress’s view that the
President is only constitutionally authorized to use U.S. military forces under
three circumstances: (1)cCongress has declared war,;(2) Congress has otherwise
provided statutory authority forcthe President to use forces; or (3) an attack
on the United States has created a national
emergency. Id. § 1541.
125. None of the three circumstances referenced in Section 2 of the statute
were created by the crisis in Libya.
126. Section 3 requires that, when possible, the President must consult with
Congress when he intends to introduce military forces “into hostilities
or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicated by the circumstances.” Id. § 1542.
127. The statute provides that the President must notify Congress within
forty-eight hours of committing armed forces to military
action. Id. § 1543(a).
128. President Obama sent a letter to congressional leadership on March 21,
2011 informing them of the commencement of combat operations. Letter to
Congressional Leaders Reporting on the Commencement of Military Operations
Against Libya, 2011 Daily Comp. Pres. Doc. 193 (March 21, 2011).
129. In the March 21, 2011 letter, President Obama reported that U.S. military
forces had commenced operations in Libya at 3:00 p.m. EDT on March 19,
2011. Id. at 1.
130. Section 5 of the statute requires that, even if the president has reported
to Congress as required, he must terminate military action if after sixty days
Congress has not declared war or authorized the use of military forces. 50
U.S.C. § 1544.
131. In cases of extreme necessity, this period can be extended by up to thirty
days. Id.
132. The extended period is to allow for the continuation of operations when
“unavoidable military necessity” requires the continuing use of
armed forces “in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such
forces.” Id.
133. There has been no claim of extreme or unavoidable necessity in the Libyan
war.
134. On May 20, 2011, President Obama failed to satisfy the conditions of the
War Powers Resolution.
135. Even if one accepts President Obama’s communication of March 21,
2011 as official notification of the use of armed forces, U.S. forces had to be
withdrawn by May 20, 2011 (the sixty-day mark) because congressional approval
or declaration had not been (and still has not been) obtained.
136. Thus, U.S. forces have now been kept in the Libyan operations beyond the
period allowed by federal law.
137. Instead of complying with the War Powers Resolution, the White House
supports a bill introduced in the Senate that is not an authorization but
simply a statement of support and request for some level of conferral by the
White House. See S. Res. 194, 112th Cong. (2011),
available at http://mccain.senate.gov (select “Press
Releases,” then “5/23/2011”).
138. In public comments, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has stated that
it is sufficient for the President to have “consult[ed]” with a few
members and that, while not asking for authorization, the President would
“welcome an expression of support from Congress” in the form of the
aforementioned resolution introduced in the Senate. Jay Carney, White House
Press Secretary, Press Briefing (May 20, 2011).
139. On May 20, 2011, President Obama sent a letter to congressional leadership
informing it that his Administration concluded that the War Powers Resolution
does not apply to the U.S. involvement in Libya because of the limited nature
of that involvement. See Jake Tapper, White House
on War Powers Deadline: Limited Role Means No Need to
Get Congressional Authorization, ABCNEWS.com (May 20, 2011,
7:14 PM),
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadlinelimited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html .
140. Specifically, President Obama stated that the War Powers Resolution does
not apply because: U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support
to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and
search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the
suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and
(3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a
limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led
coalition's efforts. Id. (quoting the President’s
May 20, 2011 letter).
141. The level of involvement described by the President’s letter falls
well within the scope of the War Powers Resolution, which applies whenever U.S.
armed forces are either “introduced . . . into hostilities or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by
the circumstances,” 50 U.S.C. § 1543(a)(1), or are introduced
“into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while
equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply,
replacement, repair, or training of such
forces,” id. § 1543(a)(2).
142. On June 14, 2011, Speaker John Boehner sent a letter to President Obama
informing him that the ninety-day period under the War Powers Resolution would
pass on June 17th and that the President has failed to comply with the
statute. Boehner Warns Obama on Libya, Wall St. J., June 14,
2011.
Congressional Opposition
143. On June 3rd, 2011, the House of Representatives passed H.R. Res. 292,
declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the
presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground
in Libya.
144. The debate over H.R. Res. 292 included statements by members that they
had no idea from where the Administration was obtaining the hundreds of
millions of dollars used for the war.
145. The person directly responsible for such appropriations in the
congressional leadership, Chairman Rep. C.W. Bill Young, spoke directly to this
issue: As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, as my colleague
has said, my responsibility is to provide for the funding or any military
operation that is approved by the Commander in Chief and approved by the
Congress. On the matter of Libya, on April 1, I sent a letter to the President,
trying to exercise my responsibilities as chairman—a conciliatory letter,
actually— expressing support for our troops but asking certain questions:
How long do you think this will last? How much do you think it will cost? How
much of a future commitment have we made? What will be the source of the
funding for this operation? Here, more than 2 months later, this official
request from the Appropriations Committee still remains unanswered by the
administration. That’s just not right. The Constitution is pretty clear.
Article I, section 9 of the Constitution, in part, reads, “No money shall
be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law;
and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all
public money shall be published from time to time.” So far, on the Libya
issue, this article I, section 9 has been totally ignored. It’s just not
right. That’s a violation, in my opinion, and contravenes the
Constitution, itself. When I asked for that information, the only thing I got
on the cost of this Libyan operation was in bits and pieces. We have added it,
and we have come to about $750 million already spent on the Libyan mission.
They’ve not confirmed that, but we have put together, with our own
addition, bits and pieces on that. Again, we have received no reply whatsoever.
What I’m wondering is: Where is the money to pay for the Libyan operation
coming from? What account is it coming from? Is it coming out of personnel
costs—soldiers’ pay? Is it coming out of medical care? Is it coming
out of the training for our troops? What accounts are being used? We have a
right and an obligation under the Constitution to know the answer to that.
157 Cong. Rec. H4003 (Daily ed. June 3, 2011) (statement of Rep. C.W. Bill
Young).
146. H.R. Res. 292, sponsored by the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, John Boehner, passed with 268 yeas, 145 nays, 1 present, and
18 members not voting. H.R. Res. 292, 112th Cong. (2011), available
athttp://rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/Floor_Text/BOEHNE_002_xml%281%29.
pdf; see also Jennifer Steinhauer, House Rebukes
Obama for Continuing Libyan Mission Without Its Consent,
N.Y. Times (June 3, 2011),http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/world/africa/04policy.html.
147. In his aforementioned June 14, 2011 letter to President Obama, Speaker
Boehner reiterated the deadline given under H.R. Res. 292 of Friday, June 17,
2011, and noted the failure of the Administration to comply with either H.R.
Res. 292 or the War Powers Resolution.
148. Speaker Boehner objected to the President that, since the outset of
military action, “the White House has systematically avoided requesting a
formal authorization for its action.”
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(War Powers Clause)
149. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 148 as if set forth fully herein.
150. The text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution expressly
requires the President to secure a declaration of war from Congress prior to
committing U.S. military forces.
151. The express language of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 is reinforced by
the clear intent of the Framers, who spoke often of the need to avoid
unilateral commencement of wars by the Chief Executive.
152. On one occasion, Pierce Butler of South Carolina proposed giving the
President the power to make war, arguing that he “will have all the
requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the
Nation will support it.” The Records of the Federal Convention of
1787, at 318 (Max Farrand ed., 1937) (emphasis added).
153. Elbridge Gerry stated that he “never expected to hear in a republic
a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare
war.” Id.
154. Among the other voices that prevailed in denying the president this power,
George Mason stated that he was “[against] giving the power of war to the
Executive, because [he was] not [safely] to be trusted with
it.” Id. at 319. Ultimately,
Mason “was for clogging rather than facilitating
war.” Id.
155. The views of the Framers have been affirmed throughout the years by
American leaders, including President Obama.
156. In 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama stated that “[t]he president does
not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military
attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent
threat to the nation.”
157. Likewise, then-Senator Joseph Biden stated that “[t]he Constitution
is clear: Except in response to an attack or the imminent threat of attack,
only Congress may authorize war and the use of force.”
158. Likewise, then-Senator Hillary Clinton insisted that she did “not
believe that the President can take military action—including any kind of
strategic bombing—against Iran without congressional
authorization.”
159. The Libyan operations ordered by President Obama constitute
“war” for the purpose of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the
Constitution.
160. President Obama prosecuted the war without a declaration of Congress with
the use of funds never approved for such a war.
161. These actions have avoided a public vote on a war that is, according to
recent poll, only supported by twenty-three percent of Americans. Just
26% Favor Continued Military Action in Libya, Rasmussen
Reports (June 13, 2011),http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2011/just_26_favor_continued_military_action_in_libya.
162. Obama’s war in Libya is precisely what the Framers opposed—and
thought they had barred—in requiring an open, public declaration for
wars.
163. The Obama Administration has read the mandatory consent of Congress out of
the Constitution and replaced it with a purely discretionary power of the
President to commence war with or without congressional approval.
164. As members of Congress, the Plaintiffs assert the right to challenge a per
se violation of Article I of the Constitution as well as the violation of
statutory laws governing the commencement and funding of any undeclared
war.
165. The Plaintiffs acknowledge that standing of members has been curtailed in
prior judicial opinions, but they believe that these decisions allow for an
exception for these claims and that members of Congress must have the ability
to seek judicial review in this context. See Raines v. Byrd, 521
U.S. 811 (1997); Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 21 (D.C.
Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 815 (2000).
166. The Plaintiffs also believe that they have standing as taxpayers given the
use of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds without authorization
of Congress to support a war in violation of a specific constitutional
limitation in Article I. See generally Flast
v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 85 (1968). While acknowledging past
decisions limiting such standing to Establishment Clause challenges under the
First Amendment, and rejecting some challenges to Executive Branch actions, the
Plaintiffs believe that the violations asserted herein fall within a narrow
exception allowing judicial review. The Taxing and Spending Clause is closely
related to the powers under Article I, Section 8, clause 1 to “provide
for the common [d]efence.”
167. To the extent that prior cases are viewed as barring judicial review, the
Plaintiffs believe those cases were wrongly decided and wish to seek
reconsideration of the question in this context.
168. As an undeclared war, the Libyan War is a per se violation of Article I,
Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution.
169. The Obama Administration has prosecuted this undeclared war as part of its
policy that the Executive Branch is not required to seek congressional approval
for such military operations.
170. The Obama Administration has further advanced a policy that military
actions involving combat operations over an indefinite period of time are not a
“war” for the purposes of Article I.
171. These actions and policies violate Article I of the Constitution and
exceed the authority of the President under Article II of the Constitution.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(War Powers Resolution)
172. The Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 171 as if set forth fully herein.
173. President Obama unilaterally attacked Libya and provided military
assistance to Libyan rebels without congressional authorization or
consultation.
174. The War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548, requires the
President to notify Congress within forty-eight hours of ordering the U.S.
armed forces into hostilities and requires the withdrawal of American forces if
congressional authorization is not given within sixty days of the
President’s notification. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1543(a), 1544(b).
175. This notification requirement is triggered whenever U.S. forces are
introduced “into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation,
while equipped for combat.” Id. § 1543(a).
176. President Obama declined to seek authorization to use military force in
Libya within the sixty-day period under the War Powers Resolution.
177. The Obama Administration maintains a policy that the President has the
inherent authority to commence military operations like those in Libya and is
not bound by the terms of the War Powers Resolution.
178. The Libyan War, as well as its underlying policies, has been maintained in
violation of the War Powers Resolution, a federal law.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(U.N. Security Council Resolution)
179. The Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 178 as if set forth fully herein.
180. The Obama Administration has relied on a policy that a U.N. Security
Council resolution expands the power of the President because the President has
a distinct obligation to enforce such U.N. resolutions.
181. A U.N. resolution does not negate any provision of the United States
Constitution since it is not within the power of the President to sign a treaty
(or the Senate to approve a treaty) that abrogates a constitutional
provision.
182. A U.N. resolution like Security Council Resolution 1973 is a
non-self-executing document.
183. As stated in Medellin v. United States, 552 U.S. 491, 527
(2008), “[a] non-self-executing treaty, by definition, is one that was
ratified with the understanding that it is not to have domestic effect of its
own force.”
184. Despite U.S. membership in the United Nations and its Security Council,
neither U.N. resolutions nor treaties can relieve the President of
constitutional obligations under Article I on congressional authorizations of
war.
185. The policy that a U.N. resolution relieves the President of his obligation
to seek congressional approval of combat operations in countries like Libya
violates Article I and exceeds the President’s authority under Article
II.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(North Atlantic Treaty)
186. The Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 185 as if set forth fully herein.
187. Congress approved the North Atlantic Treaty under express limitations on
the scope, basis, and precursor process for military action.
188. The North Atlantic Treaty allows only for military actions in defense of a
member state or states.
189. Libya did not attack or threaten a member state in the NATO alliance.
190. Congress approved the North Atlantic Treaty under the express condition
that any military action would only occur “in accordance with [the]
respective constitutional processes” of the United States.
191. The “respective constitutional process” of the United States
requires consultation and a declaration of war from Congress.
192. President Obama has used a treaty that expressly bars unilateral action to
achieve his purpose of committing U.S. forces and funds to war without
congressional authorization.
193. The Obama Administration has articulated a policy that the North Atlantic
Treaty may be used without an attack on or threat to a NATO member.
194. The Administration further maintains the policy that the President does
not have to follow the requirement of satisfying the constitutional process of
the United States by receiving a declaration of war or approval of combat
operations by Congress.
195. The use of the North Atlantic Treaty in this undeclared war violates the
express ratified language of the Treaty and thus exceeds the President’s
authority under Article II of the Constitution.
196. The use of the North Atlantic Treaty for purposes or operations not
approved by Congress further violates Article I of the Constitution.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Use of Federal Monies)
197. The Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 196 as if set forth fully herein.
198. Article I of the Constitution states that “[n]o money shall be drawn
from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7.
199. President Obama has supported the undeclared war in Libya by tapping into
previously appropriated funds for an unconstitutional and unauthorized war in
Libya.
200. While Congress has allowed the Department of Defense discretion in the use
of some funds to handle emergencies, these funds cannot be used for a facially
unconstitutional purpose or to circumvent express legislative powers.
201. In addition to general discretionary funds, the Administration is barred
from using the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds, which are expressly
limited for use in operations directly related to the global war on terror.
202. Over $750 million has been expended without either congressional approval
or a congressional declaration.
203. It is the policy of the Obama Administration that it may use previously
appropriated funds for an undeclared war in contravention of both the
Constitution and federal law.
204. Such use of funds is a misuse of federal funds in violation of Article I
and exceeds the authority of the President under Article II.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
a. Enter an order declaring that the operations in Libya constitute a
war for purposes of Article I and, as such, are unconstitutional absent a
declaration of war from Congress pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of
the United States Constitution;
b. Enter an order declaring unconstitutional the policy that the
President may unilaterally extend the North Atlantic Treaty to cover combat
operations against a country that had not attacked a NATO country;
c. Enter an order declaring unconstitutional the policy that the
President may unilaterally extend the North Atlantic Treaty to cover combat
operations against a country without satisfying the constitutional process of
the United States, including the necessity of seeking authority from
Congress;
d. Enter an order declaring unconstitutional the policy of the
Administration that a U.N. resolution can negate the obligation of the
President to seek approval of a war or military operations in countries like
Libya;
e. Enter an order declaring unconstitutional the policy of the
Administration that the President may use previously appropriated monies to
support an undeclared war in circumvention of Article I;
f. Order all injunctive relief to end the violations alleged above,
including but not limited to an order to suspend military operations in Libya
absent a declaration of war from Congress;
g. Award the Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
incurred in maintaining this action pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2006);
h. Award the Plaintiffs damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs incurred in maintaining this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1988; and
i. Award such other relief as it may deem just and
proper.
JURY DEMAND
The Plaintiffs do not request a jury on the issues herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Turley (D.C. Bar 417674)
2000 H St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20052
(202) 994-7001
