The U.S. and U.K. led a series of airstrikes in Yemen on Thursday evening, setting off alarms globally about how the attacks play into the smoldering regional risk of conflict — including a stream of questions from Congress about whether Biden was legally authorized to conduct the strikes at all.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
Rep Tlaib is welcome to file a lawsuit if she thinks the AUMF in unconstitutional. It would be a bit strange though if it survived 23 years of use, including actions in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and then a response to direct attacks on US Navy ships winds up being what sinks it.
But again, these representatives can sue if they’re so confident.
And would anyone expect this court to rule the AUMF unconstitutional?
As I said, it’s been in use for coming up on 23 years now. There have been plenty of Courts available during that time.
Saying that it’s not a good law - which I would actually agree with - is a very different thing from saying that it’s unconstitutional.
It’s ironic you bring up Marbury vs. Madison. The case where the Supreme Court gave itself the extra-constitutional authority to strike down laws.