Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The War Powers Consultation Act: Keeping War Out Of The Zone Of Twilight, Brendan Flynn
The War Powers Consultation Act: Keeping War Out Of The Zone Of Twilight, Brendan Flynn
Catholic University Law Review
The Constitution divides the war powers between Congress, which declares war, and the President, who serves as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Since the Korean War, the President has claimed increased authority to send the military into harm’s way without Congressional authorization. This Comment surveys the war powers issue through U.S. history and asserts that the President’s claim of increased authority has been enabled by Congressional abdication of its role, leading to wars fought in a legal “zone of twilight” in which Congress has neither authorized nor forbidden Presidential action (drawing on Justice Jackson’s famous tripartite analysis in his Youngstown …
Rationalizing The Constitution: The Military Commissions Act And The Duboius Legacy Of Ex Parte Quirin, Chad Deveaux
Rationalizing The Constitution: The Military Commissions Act And The Duboius Legacy Of Ex Parte Quirin, Chad Deveaux
Akron Law Review
Alexander Hamilton famously characterized the Judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch. It “has no influence over either the sword or the purse” and thus “must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” But this perceived safeguard has sometimes proven to be the institution’s undoing. Faced with the prospect of appearing impotent, the Supreme Court has, on occasion, played the role of doctrinal apologist. The Court has bent seemingly immutable constitutional prerogatives to sanction Executive action when a contrary ruling would likely go unheeded.
The Boundless War: Challenging The Notion Of A Global Armed Conflict Against Al-Qaeda And Its Affiliates, Andrew Beshai
The Boundless War: Challenging The Notion Of A Global Armed Conflict Against Al-Qaeda And Its Affiliates, Andrew Beshai
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
The U.S. military response to the 9/11 attacks has expanded into a “global war” without a definite geographic scope. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have executed attacks in several countries including Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen under the “global war” paradigm. This Article challenges the concept of a global armed conflict, instead favoring the “epicenter-of-hostilities” framework for determining the legality of military action against Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups. This approach, rooted in established international law, measures the existence of specific criteria in each nation where hostile forces are present to determine if an armed conflict in …