John Bonifaz tells Buzzflash, "It would be very unfortunate for this country to go through a process by which it reelects a President without any consideration of whether he's committed impeachable offenses, only to then, assuming after that election, begin that process. This process ought to begin now. There ought to be scrutiny engaged by the U.S. Congress today on whether Bush has committed impeachable offenses... These are high crimes that the President has committed, and he ought to be impeached for that reason. And this investigation ought to deal with the question of those high crimes. Elections are for questioning whether or not there's popular support for the person in office or the person seeking office. But the impeachment process is for addressing the matter of high crimes. And it's critical now for this nation and for the integrity of the Constitution that we engage in that process."

John Bonifaz and Bob Fertik write, "George W. Bush - whose own election was dubious - has seized monarchical powers in sending this nation into war without any legitimate congressional declaration of war or equivalent congressional action. He has lied to the Congress and to the American people about the rationale for the war. He has imprisoned American citizens without charges and denied them access to lawyers and the courts. He has thus trampled on the Constitution and he has violated his oath of office. This nation is at a crossroads. These are not simply issues to be debated in a presidential election. These are 'high crimes' in the most profound meaning of the phrase, and they require the most serious of legal responses. Our Constitution lays out a specific process for addressing high crimes committed by a president: impeachment. The time has come for Congress to investigate these crimes and begin impeachment proceedings. Our loyalty to our Constitution requires nothing less."

John Bonifaz: "The first lie about the Iraq war was not that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or ties to Al Qaeda. The first lie told to the American people is that Congress voted for this war. In the midst of the rushed congressional debate in October 2002, Sen. Robert C. Byrd warned that the resolution under consideration was unconstitutional. 'We are handing this over to the President of the United States,' Byrd said. 'When we do that, we can put up a sign on the top of this Capitol, and we can say: 'Gone home. Gone fishing. Out of business.'' Byrd added: 'I never thought I would see the day in these 44 years I have been in this body... when we would cede this kind of power to any president.' The Iraq war is in direct violation of the Constitution. The president and the members of Congress who voted for that October resolution should be held accountable for sending this nation into an illegal war. It is time to hold up the Constitution to the faces of those who dare to defy it."

Roll Call reports, "Acting with surprising speed, a federal appeals court in Boston has revived a lawsuit seeking to block Bush from launching an attack against Iraq without a formal declaration of war approved by Congress. The constitutional challenge - filed by a dozen House Democrats and a number of military members and their families - was dismissed Feb. 24 by a lower-court judge. But in a rare move that signaled heightened interest in the matter, a three-judge panel of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency motion to hear an appeal of the lower-court ruling with an expedited argument and briefing schedule. An emergency hearing was held last week and the panel asked for both sides to submit briefs in the case by Tuesday, indicating that it would issue a ruling quickly. 'Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is quite clear that Congress, and only Congress, shall have the power to declare war. Bush is not a king,' attorney John Bonifaz said."

John Nichols writes, "'When we look at the world community, we see that they had a debate in the Parliament of Turkey. They had a debate in the Parliament of Great Britain. They are having serious debates in legislative bodies all over the world, and yet there is no debate in Congress,' says Nancy Lessin, the mother of a 25-year-old Marine who has been dispatched to the Persian Gulf. Lessin and other parents of troops serving in the Gulf have joined US soldiers and a dozen members of Congress as plaintiffs in a lawsuit that seeks to bar Bush from ordering an attack on Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war... Tuesday's appearance before [the US Court of Appeals] saw this argument treated with respect and a reasonable level of interest by at least two of the jurists. 'Clearly the court understands the gravity of the issues being put before it,' said Bonifaz. 'I think we have strong arguments and I think the judges want to hear them.'"

Salon reports, "Six House members, members of the military and parents of servicemen went to federal court to try to prevent Bush from launching an invasion of Iraq without an explicit declaration of war from Congress. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and the other plaintiffs said the October 2002 congressional resolution backing military action against Iraq did not specifically declare war and unlawfully ceded the decision to Bush. Conyers cited the passage from the U.S. Constitution that states, 'Congress shall have power ... to declare war.' 'Get it? Only Congress.' John Bonifaz, the Boston lawyer who filed the lawsuit, said 'The resident is not a king,' he said. 'He does not have the power to wage war against another country absent a declaration of war from Congress.' The other members of Congress named as plaintiffs are: Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill.; Jim McDermott, D-Wash.; Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.; and Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas."