President/Executive Department Commons^™

Agenda: Introduction To The Legal Foundation Of Federal Land Management, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Introduction to the Legal Foundation of Federal Land Management (December 1-3)

Materials prepared for the course held at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado on December 1-3, 2004

Course instructors: Charles Wilkinson; Sarah Krakoff; Kathryn Mutz; Ann Morgan; Maggie Fox

Contents:

Introduction -- Agenda -- Summaries of laws -- Case studies. Travel management; Oil and gas development; Timber/fuels reduction -- How to influence agency decision makers -- Natural resource related legal and policy resources for the non-legal professional

Introduction To The Legal Foundation Of Federal Land Management, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Introduction to the Legal Foundation of Federal Land Management (December 1-3)

1 v. (various pagings) : ill., maps ; 28 cm

Materials prepared for the course held at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado on December 1-3, 2004

Course instructors: Charles Wilkinson; Sarah Krakoff; Kathryn Mutz; Ann Morgan; Maggie Fox

Contents:

Introduction -- Agenda -- Summaries of laws -- Case studies. Travel management; Oil and gas development; Timber/fuels reduction -- How to influence agency decision makers -- Natural resource related legal and policy resources for the non-legal professional

Foreword - Interdisciplinary Perspectives On Fear And Risk Perception In Times Of Democratic Crisis (Symposium), Christina E. Wells, Jennifer K. Robbennolt

Faculty Publications

The articles and essays included or referenced in this volume discuss both the factors that affect decision making in times of crisis and their implications for law and democratic theory. Professor Cass Sunstein's keynote address, Fear and Liberty, noted that psychological biases such as the availability heuristic and probability neglect can skew risk perception, leading to excessive public fear of national security risks and unreasonable curtailment of civil liberties. According to Sunstein, courts, which are typically responsible for protecting civil liberties, often lack sufficient information to assess whether national security concerns justify incursions on civil liberties. Nevertheless, he concluded that …

Questioning Deference, Christina E. Wells

Faculty Publications

This article examines the accepted axiom that courts should defer to the government's actions during national security crises even when such actions potentially violate citizens' constitutional rights. The paper questions two assumptions underlying that axiom - first, that executive officials are best equipped to determine when security needs justify liberty infringements and, second, that judges are particularly unqualified to meddle in security issues, even when civil liberties are involved. Relying on psychological theories regarding the role that fear plays in skewing risk assessment and historical analyses of past crises, the paper argues that times of crisis lend themselves to unnecessary …

Interpreting Conflicting Provisions Of The Nevada State Constitution, William D. Popkin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Is Criminal Justice A Casualty Of The Bush Administration's War On Terror?, Michael Greenberger

Faculty Scholarship

Relying on Article I Presidential War Powers, the Bush administration has employed many detention and law enforcement strategies in fighting the War on Terrorism that seemingly give short shrift to traditional constitutional protections. The first of these strategies will be subject to Supreme Court resolution by the end of this Term and concerns the Bush Administration tactic of unilaterally declaring U.S. citizens to be "enemy combatants," thereby subjecting them to incarceration in military prisons without any right to counsel, prior judicial process, or judicial review of this status. Another strategy employed on a widespread basis by the DOJ after September …

Judging Terror In The "Zone Of Twilight" Exigency, Institutional Equity, And Procedure After September 11, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Executive Power Essentialism And Foreign Affairs, Curtis A. Bradley, Martin S. Flaherty

Michigan Law Review

Conflict abroad almost always enhances executive power at home. This expectation has held true at least since the constitutions of antiquity. It holds no less true for modern constitutions, including the Constitution of the United States. Constitutional arguments for executive power likewise escalate with increased perceptions of foreign threat. It is therefore hardly surprising that broad assertions of presidential power have become commonplace after the events of September 11, 2001, and the ensuing war on international terrorism. One perennial weapon in the executive arsenal is the so-called "Vesting Clause" of Article II of the Constitution. This clause, which provides that …

Information Control In Times Of Crisis: The Tools Of Repression (Symposium, Privacy And Surveillance), Christina E. Wells

Faculty Publications

This article identifies several tools of information control that occur consistently throughout history. The government does not use all of these tools in every national security crisis. Nor does it always abuse them. However, the patterns that emerge suggest a certain predictability to (1) the government's actions during national security crises, and (2) the potentially negative consequences flowing from them that warrants our attention. Understanding this historical pattern of government action allows one to identify and potentially prevent future problems. This is especially important in the post-9/11 world in which the government has asked for and received controversial powers with …

Federal Common Law In An Age Of Treaties, Michael P. Van Alstine

Faculty Scholarship

In this article Professor Van Alstine explores the interaction between the limitations on the doctrine of federal common law and the power of federal courts to interpret the law within the scope of treaties. The article first reviews the constitutional foundation for the operation of treaties as directly applicable ("self-executing") federal law. It then explains that, notwithstanding the Erie doctrine, federal courts may obtain lawmaking powers from either a delegation by Congress or in certain areas of "uniquely federal interest."

Professor Van Alstine then argues that the judicial relationship with self-executing treaty law in principle proceeds from the same source …

Supreme Court To Decide Jurisdiction Over Guantanamo Detainees, John Anderson

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

The Presidential Oath, The American National Interest And A Call For Presiprudence, Robert F. Blomquist

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Secret Life Of The Political Question Doctrine, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 441 (2004), Louis Michael Seidman

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Marbury V. Madison As The First Great Administrative Law Decision, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 481 (2004), Thomas W. Merrill

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The President's Power To Detain "Enemy Combatants": Modern Lessons From Mr. Madison's Forgotten War, Ingrid Wuerth

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article uses three sets of cases from the War of 1812 to illustrate three problems with how modern courts have approached the detention of "enemy combatants" in the United States. The War of 1812 cases show that modern courts have relied too heavily on deference-based reasoning, and have failed to adequately consider both international law and congressional authorization when upholding the detentions as constitutional. The War of 1812, termed "Mr. Madison's War" by contemporary opponents, was fought largely on our own territory against a powerful foreign enemy, making it an especially rich source for comparison to the modern war …

Settling The Wilderness, Sarah Krakoff

Publications

No abstract provided.

Unfunding Terror - Perspectives On Unfunding Terror (Panel One), Jimmy Gurule

Journal Articles

According to the FBI, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that claimed the lives of 2,973 innocent civilians required as much as $500,000 to stage. At the time, al Qaeda, the jihadi terrorist organization responsible for the mass killings, was operating on an annual budget between $30 and $50 million. However, despite the obvious fact that terrorists need money to support their terrorist operations and organizational infrastructure, prior to 9/11, preventing the financing of terrorism was not a priority for the United States or international community. Moreover, a comprehensive legal framework to …

The Unitary Executive During The Third Half-Century, 1889-1945, Christopher S. Yoo, Steven G. Calabresi, Laurence D. Nee

All Faculty Scholarship

Recent Supreme Court decisions and the impeachment of President Clinton has reinvigorated the debate over Congress's authority to employ devices such as special counsels and independent agencies to restrict the President's control over the administration of the law. The initial debate focused on whether the Constitution rejected the executive by committee employed by the Articles of the Confederation in favor of a unitary executive, in which all administrative authority is centralized in the President. More recently, the debate has begun to turn towards historical practices. Some scholars have suggested that independent agencies and special counsels have become such established features …

The New Post 9/11 America Or The Making Of King George: A Review Of Executive Power In The Effort To Combat Global Terrorism As It Relates To The Power Of The Purse, Woodrow E. Turner

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Hardball, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 523 (2004), Mark Tushnet

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Domestic Security Enhancement Act Of 2003: A Glimpse Into A Post-Patriot Act Approach To Combating Domestic Terrorism, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 327 (2004), Timothy Scahill

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Executive And Judicial Overreaction In The Guantanamo Cases, Neal K. Katyal

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush and Al-Odah v. United States held that detainees at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detentions via writs of habeas corpus. Justice Stevens' majority opinion held that "the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive's potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing." This holding is potentially unbounded, perhaps enabling someone detained at Kandahar or even Diego Garcia to challenge his detention via the great writ. It appears to be a striking break from the 1950 Johnson v. Eisentrager decision, which strongly intimated that …

Checks And Balances In Wartime: American British And Israeli Experiences, Stephen J. Schulhofer

Michigan Law Review

Three years after an attack that traumatized the nation and prompted massive military and law-enforcement counter-measures, we continue to wrestle with the central dilemma of the rule of law. Which is more to be feared - the danger of unchecked executive and military power, or the danger of terrorist attacks that only an unconstrained executive could prevent? Posed in varying configurations, the question has already generated extensive litigation since September 11, 2001, and a dozen major appellate rulings. Last Term's Supreme Court trilogy - Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld v. Padilla - clarified several important points …

Rhetoric, Public Reason And Bioethics: The President's Council On Bioethics And Human Cloning, M. Cathleen Kaveny

M. Cathleen Kaveny

No abstract provided.