Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Who Decides On Security?, Aziz Rana
Who Decides On Security?, Aziz Rana
Aziz Rana
Despite over six decades of reform initiatives, the overwhelming drift of security arrangements in the United States has been toward greater—not less— executive centralization and discretion. This Article explores why efforts to curb presidential prerogative have failed so consistently. It argues that while constitutional scholars have overwhelmingly focused their attention on procedural solutions, the underlying reason for the growth of emergency powers is ultimately political rather than purely legal. In particular, scholars have ignored how the basic meaning of "security" has itself shifted dramatically since World War II and the beginning of the Cold War in line with changing ideas …
Toward Comprehensive Reform Of America's Emergency Law Regime, Patrick A. Thronson
Toward Comprehensive Reform Of America's Emergency Law Regime, Patrick A. Thronson
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Unbenownst to most Americans, the United States is presently under thirty presidentially declared states of emergency. They confer vast powers on the Executive Branch, including the ability to financially incapacitate any person or organization in the United States, seize control of the nation's communications infrastructure, mobilize military forces, expand the permissible size of the military without congressional authorization, and extend tours of duty without consent from service personnel. Declared states of emergency may also activate Presidential Emergency Action Documents and other continuity-of-government procedures, which confer powers on the President-such as the unilateral suspension of habeas corpus-that appear fundamentally opposed to …
Who Decides On Security?, Aziz Rana
Who Decides On Security?, Aziz Rana
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Despite over six decades of reform initiatives, the overwhelming drift of security arrangements in the United States has been toward greater—not less— executive centralization and discretion. This Article explores why efforts to curb presidential prerogative have failed so consistently. It argues that while constitutional scholars have overwhelmingly focused their attention on procedural solutions, the underlying reason for the growth of emergency powers is ultimately political rather than purely legal. In particular, scholars have ignored how the basic meaning of "security" has itself shifted dramatically since World War II and the beginning of the Cold War in line with changing ideas …
Unaccountable? The United Nations, Emergency Powers, And The Rule Of Law, Simon Chesterman
Unaccountable? The United Nations, Emergency Powers, And The Rule Of Law, Simon Chesterman
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
For a body committed to the rule of law in theory, the applicability of the rule of law to the United Nations in practice remains oddly unclear. This Article will not consider the personal responsibility of UN officials, who generally enjoy personal or functional immunity from legal process in the territories where they work. Rather the focus of this Article is on the quasi-constitutional question of the liability of the organization itself. As the United Nations has assumed more state-like functions-in particular through the coercive activities of its Security Council--the question of what limits exist on the powers thus exercised …
Weakening The Bill Of Rights: A Victory For Terrorism, Stephen Reinhardt
Weakening The Bill Of Rights: A Victory For Terrorism, Stephen Reinhardt
Michigan Law Review
What is most remarkable about Richard Posner's latest book-and he has written many-is that he argues that we should repose full confidence in the executive branch to handle the most sensitive constitutional issues of our time without once mentioning the flagrant breaches of law and critical falsehoods with which President Bush and his administration have deluged the public since 9/11. This only seven years after he composed a lengthy tome regarding President Clinton's impeachment in which he appropriately, if harshly, condemned the president for his unethical and illegal conduct, principally his deliberate lies and purposeful lack of candor with the …
The Priority Of Morality: The Emergency Constitution's Blind Spot, David Cole
The Priority Of Morality: The Emergency Constitution's Blind Spot, David Cole
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Three aspects of Bruce Ackerman’s thesis, which is a proposal to legitimate the practice of suspicionless preventive detention during emergencies, are discussed in this essay—its premises, its efficacy, and its morality. Part I critiques three of Ackerman’s premises—his underestimation of courts and overestimation of legislatures as guardians of liberty, his misguided belief that the supermajoritarian escalator provides a one-size-fits-all solution to the conundrum of emergency powers, and his contention that the short-lived character of emergencies makes it sensible to cede to a minority of our popular representatives control over critically important and largely unpredictable decisions concerning the appropriate duration of …
Judging The Next Emergency: Judicial Review And Individual Rights In Times Of Crisis, David Cole
Judging The Next Emergency: Judicial Review And Individual Rights In Times Of Crisis, David Cole
Michigan Law Review
As virtually every law student who studies Marbury v. Madison learns, Chief Justice John Marshall's tactical genius was to establish judicial review in a case where the result could not be challenged. As a technical matter, Marbury lost, and the executive branch won. As furious as President Jefferson reportedly was with the decision, there was nothing he could do about it, for there was no mandate to defy. The Court's decision offered no remedy for Marbury himself, whose rights were directly at issue, and whose rights the Court found had indeed been violated. But over time, it became clear that …
Preventive Detention: Prisoners, Suspected Terrorists And Permanent Emergency, Jules Lobel
Preventive Detention: Prisoners, Suspected Terrorists And Permanent Emergency, Jules Lobel
Articles
Central to the United States government’s strategy after the September 11th attacks has been a shift from punishing unlawful conduct to pre-empting possible or potential dangers. This strategy threatens to undermine fundamental principles of both constitutional law and international law which prohibit certain government action based on mere suspicion or perceived threat. The law normally requires that the government wait until a person or nation has committed or is attempting to commit a criminal act before it may employ force in response. The dangers of a policy of preventive detention have been analyzed from a number of perspectives. Historians have …
Presidential Systems In Stress: Emergency Powers In Argentina And The United States, William C. Banks, Alejandro D. Carrió
Presidential Systems In Stress: Emergency Powers In Argentina And The United States, William C. Banks, Alejandro D. Carrió
Michigan Journal of International Law
This article offers three comparative insights. First, it concludes that comparative inquiries into presidential systems may be useful for those interested in constitutional government, regardless of historical, cultural, or other contextual differences among nations. Thus, nations with presidentialist constitutional systems may have common problems because of the institutional presidency. The article maintains that our presidential systems are in such states of disrepair that a fundamental reinvigoration of the legislative and judicial branches is required, so that government may better serve important constitutional values in our nations.