(1) USSC Original Jurisdictional pursuant to U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 2.

(2) 28 U.S.C. § 1291 a congressional legislated code. Legislative laws necessarily predominate in a Republic!    

(3) FRCvP Rule 8(d) whereas Doe had made an averment to the USSC!    

(4) Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50 (1982)

An averment is to allege that something is true to a Defendant BUSH in a judicial setting requiring an ANSWER, in this case the upcoming and now ongoing Iraq War was alleged Contrary to Our Constitution as Federally Recorded in the Federal Boston District and Federal Appellate Courts in February and March of 2003, and as of yet there has not been any ANSWER received within USSC ORIGINAL JURISDICTION where our constitutional framers by constitutional law required that ANSWER to be registered and argued over, so the averment that this Iraq War is unconstitutional has remained TRUE for over five years and since Doe in Doe v. Bush was turned down by two inferior Federal Courts to the USSC by them taking JURISDICTION and refusing to stop the president from declaring war, then what we have is two Federal Courts taking action on a Federal Docketed Case that:

Drastically Affected Ambassadors, Other Public Ministers And Consuls Throughout The WORLD!

USSC CASE LAW was broken! Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50 (1982) USSC Case Law was shattered as an Inferior Article I Judge may not Rule on an Article III issue, especially one that has drastically affected Ambassadors, Other Public Ministers And Consuls breaching directly the Constitution by violating USSC ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.

ARTICLE III VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

This Unconstitutional Story, Doe v. Bush, began in the Federal District Court of Massachusetts and before going to the Boston Appellate Court, was ended by U.S. Federal District Judge Joseph Tauro on February 24, 2003 by his ruling that stated a federal court would only judge the war policies of political branches of government until actions taken by Congress and the president are in conflict. Conflict is not an issue, encroachment is! USSC Case Law states in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 182 (1992) that the, "The Constitution's division of power among the three branches is violated where one branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon branch approves the encroachment." So it was up to a Federal Court with Jurisdiction to determine if there was an encroachment and U.S. Judge Joseph Tauro ruling took Jurisdiction contrary to Article III and inferred there was not any encroachment instead of doing what was correct, forwarding the Case to the USSC where it belonged! U.S. Judge Joseph Tauro stole Article III USSC ORIGINAL JURISDICTION on a docketed Federal Case of such imperative public importance affecting drastically the world's Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls.

Continuing The Story on March 13, 2003 the Boston Federal Appellate Court had Plaintiffs;: active Soldiers and their parents, 6 Congressmen and 74 concerned law professors saying the upcoming war will be unconstitutional so please stop it! They stated, the 107th Congress 2002 October Authorization To Use Force against Iraq was not a congressional Declaration of War and only legal if the United Nations Security Council authorized it and without UN authorization, the 108th Congress needed to Declare War against Iraq if an aggressive invasion by U.S. military forces would be constitutional. At that time, the Plaintiffs and all Americans knew the U.N. Security Council had many weapon inspectors in Iraq and that the United Nations wanted that peaceful means to go forward and the inferior Court to the USSC thought the executive branch would never do anything so aggressive and unconstitutional and took USSC ORIGINAL JURISDICTION and ruled on March 13, 2003 with these words:   

"The week after his September 12 (2002) speech at the United Nations, President Bush proposed language for a congressional resolution supporting the use of force against Iraq. Detailed and lengthy negotiations between and among congressional leaders and the Administration hammered out a revised and much narrower version of the resolution …. to evaluate this claim now … We would need to assume that the Security Council will not authorize war, and that the President will proceed nonetheless."

What is meant by hammering out a revised and much narrower version of a previous proposed resolution? What the Appellate Court stated was that the 107th Congress 2002 October Authorization To Use Force against Iraq was limited, restricted and did not authorize the president to proceed with war without the United Nations Security Council authorization! Charles Richardson, a Plaintiff in the case, whose U.S. Marine son was about to go to war, said, "The President is not a KING! If he wants to launch a military invasion against Iraq, he must first seek a declaration of war from the United States Congress. Our Constitution demands nothing less." Mr. Charles Richardson did not come up with the word KING as it was previously defined in our U.S. Heritage! 

Alexander Hamilton was a very strong advocate of Executive power and our Constitution and emphasized that the president’s power as Commander in Chief would be much inferior to that of the KING, by The Federalist No. 69, he wrote in New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, "The president is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the KING of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."

Reuters Sunday, September 21, 2003; 7:57 PM By Randall Mikkelsen WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Bush said on Sunday HE would tell the United Nations HE made the right decision to go to war in Iraq despite his failure to obtain Security Council backing for the conflict.  

"I will make it clear that I made the right decision." Bush Confession to Fox News's Brit Hume.

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 11 states ONLY, “Congress shall have Power To declare War”