Law Commons^™

The National Security Consequences Of The Major Questions Doctrine, Ganesh Sitaraman, Timothy Meyer

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The rise of the major questions doctrine—the rule that says that in order to delegate to the executive branch the power to resolve a “question of ‘deep economic and political significance’ that is central to [a] statutory scheme,” Congress must do so expressly—threatens to unmake the modern executive’s authority over foreign affairs, especially in matters of national security and interstate conflict. In the twenty-first century, global conflicts increasingly involve economic warfare, rather than (or in addition to) the force of arms.

In the United States, the executive power to levy economic sanctions and engage in other forms of economic warfare …

A Paper Tiger With Bite: A Defense Of The War Powers Resolution, Michael B. Weiner

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The War Powers Resolution (WPR) has led a beleaguered existence. Since its enactment in 1973, it has been labeled ineffectual and useless. This Note proves, however, that to review presidential unilateral uses of force since 1973 is to find a spirit of compliance with the WPR, as these uses of force have been characterized by their brevity and their lack of spilled U.S.blood. While minor departures from the WPR's black-letter requirements are conceded, none of these uses of force have developed into, or even resembled, Vietnam-esque quagmires. As a result, this Note contends that the WPR has had a positive …

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 …

Recent Decisions, Daniel M. Fitzpatrick, William F. Buechler

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Executive Power--President Has the Power to Block and Transfer Iranian Assets, Nullify Prejudgment Attachments, and Suspend Claims of United States Nationals in Implementing Executive Agreement for Release of Hostages

Petitioner sued the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury to enjoin enforcement of Treasury Department regulations and executive orders implementing an executive agreement with Iran that would nullify petitioner's prejudgment attachment of Iranian bank assets and prevent further litigation of its claim against Iran. The events leading up to this suit are relevant to a discussion of the legal issues.

The Import Surcharge Of 1971: A Case Study Of Executive Power In Foreign Commerce, David Pollard, David A. Boillot

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The importance of foreign trade in the conduct of foreign affairs demonstrates that many foreign commerce questions contain foreign affairs overtones. For example, President Nixon has recently noted that congressional restrictions on granting the Soviet Union most-favored-nation treatment would be "a hurdle to further detente." Although article I, section 8 of the Constitution vests the power to regulate foreign commerce in the legislative branch, the Congress has delegated a great deal of that power to the Executive. Moreover, it appears that the President possesses certain inherent powers in foreign commerce as a result of his extensive, albeit undefined, authority in …

The Nature And Extent Of Executive Power To Espouse The International Claims Of United States Nationals, Jesse W. Hill, Steven M. Lucas

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

International law is generally considered to be law that governs the conduct of sovereign states only. While individual private persons, both natural and juridical, undoubtedly are third-party beneficiaries of the rights and duties created by international law, those rights and duties, in the classical analysis, run only among sovereigns. Because rules of international law and treaties constitute obligations among or between sovereign states, a violation of international law imposes international responsibility not to the private parties who are injured by the violation but to the sovereign states of which they are members. Private parties, therefore, generally have no standing to …