Law Commons^™

The Legislator-In-Chief, Vasan Kesavan, J. Gregory Sidak

William & Mary Law Review

The State of the Union and Recommendation Clauses of Article II, Section 3provide that the President "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. "Those thirty-one words envision the President as the lead active participant in the embryonic stages of the making of laws. Eight separate principles animate the President's legislative duties and powers before the presentment process. When the State of the Union and Recommendation Clauses are seen to have this textual and analytical subtlety, they reveal …

The National Security Process And A Lawyer’S Duty: Remarks To The Senior Judge Advocate Symposium, James E. Baker

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

September 11 changed so much about our lives and how we perceive national security. Harold Lasswell, in an earlier context, described the sharing of danger throughout society as the “socialization of danger,” which he wrote was a permanent characteristic of modern violence; but not for America until September 11. The socialization of danger has made ordinary citizens participants in the national security process in a way not previously experienced. In addition, it has brought relatively unknown federal agencies, like the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Centers for Disease Control, to the forefront of national security planning and response. And …

The Antiquities Act Of 1906 And Presidential Proclamations: A Retrospective And Prospective Analysis Of President William J. Clinton's Quest To "Win The West", Heidi M. Biasi

Buffalo Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Steel Seizure Case: One Of A Kind?, Neal Devins, Louis Fisher

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty Debate: Time For Some Clarification Of The President's Authority To Terminate A Treaty, Joshua P. O'Donnell

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Note explores the legal issues surrounding a president's legal authority to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty. This Note argues that, while international legal issues surrounding treaty termination are not controversial, the domestic legal issues surrounding the president's authority to terminate a treaty are heavily disputed. An analysis of these domestic legal issues does not resolve the controversy. Instead, this Note argues that a functional analysis is required. This functional analysis reveals that the president should have the power to unilaterally terminate a treaty because it maintains foreign policy effectiveness. The Note then argues that the Senate, which informally recognizes …

Introduction, Joel K. Goldstein

All Faculty Scholarship

This issue of the Saint Louis University Law Journal traces, in some sense, to two events that occurred a quarter century ago. On February 6, 1977, Richard J. Childress, professor and former dean, of Saint Louis University School of Law died at the age of fifty-five. Barely seventeen days earlier, President Jimmy Carter had pledged an “absolute” commitment to human rights in his inaugural address and called for “international policies which reflect our own most precious values.”[1] Later that spring, President Carter called for “a new American foreign policy—a policy based on constant decency in its values and on optimism …

The Judicial Power And Treaty Delegation, Michael P. Van Alstine

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

At War With Civil Rights And Civil Liberties, Thomas E. Baker

Faculty Publications

This essay looks at the Supreme Court and acquiescence to measures by the Executive Branch that limit or suspend civil liberties during times of war or threats to national security.

Civil Rights And Civil Liberties In A Crisis: A Few Pages Of History, Thomas E. Baker

Faculty Publications

Tribute to Judge Procter Hug of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based on a talk adapted from Thomas E. Baker's At War With the Constitution: A History Lesson from the Chief Justice, 14 BYU J. Pub.L. 69 (1999).

It is but a truism that the powers of the government are greatest when the Nation is at war. All of our wartime Commanders-in-Chief have conducted themselves based on this belief. For its part, the Supreme Court has acquiesced in draconian measures undertaken by the Executive that would not be permitted during peacetime. The lasting problem …

Structural Principles And Presidential Succession, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Executive Power In Youngstown's Shadows, Patricia L. Bellia

Journal Articles

Fifty years after it was handed down, the Supreme Court's decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer is among the most important of the Court's separation of powers cases. This Article explores two quite different legacies of the Youngstown case. First, Youngstown has a symbolic or rhetorical power, in that it stands as an example of a court invalidating the actions of a coordinate branch of government in a politically delicate context. When a court wields this weapon, it can take some cover in Youngstown's shadows, and the possibility of a court exercising this power disciplines the executive …

Bush V. Gore As An Equal Protection Case, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In Bush v. Gore, the United States Supreme Court applied the Equal Protection Clause to the mechanics of state election administration. The Court invalidated the manual recount of the so-called undervote – that is, ballots that vote-counting machinery had found contained no indication of a vote for President – which the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to determine the winner of Florida's vote for presidential electors in the 2000 presidential election. The United States Supreme Court reasoned that the principles it had previously articulated in applying the Equal Protection Clause to the vote were violated by the Florida court's …

When Lawyers Advise Presidents In Wartime: Kosovo And The Law Of Armed Conflict, James E. Baker

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The events of September 11 changed how we perceive national security as a society, a government, and as individuals. This is as true of national security specialists, who have been aware that America has been at war with terrorism sine at least the 1990s, as it is for those whose sense of geographic security was shattered in New York and Washington. There is talk of “new war” and “new rules,” and concern that we not apply twentieth-century lessons to a twenty-first-century war.

Over time, September 11 and its aftermath will test our interpretation and application of domestic law. It may …

Ordered Liberty And The Homeland Security Mission, James E. Baker

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This paper will start with a brief discussion of the terrorism threat because the threat remains predicate for any serious discussion of where we draw our legal lines. I will then suggest a legal model for looking at questions of homeland security called ordered liberty. The model is simple. First, given the nature of the threat, the executive must have broad and flexible authority to detect and respond to terrorism-–to provide for our physical security. Second, the sine qua non for such authority is meaningful oversight. Oversight means the considered application of constitutional structure, executive process, legal substance, and relevant …

The War On Terrorism And Civil Liberties, Jules Lobel

Articles

Throughout American history, we have grappled with the problem of balancing liberty versus security in times of war or national emergency. Our history is littered with sordid examples of the Constitution's silence during war or perceived national emergency. The Bush Administration’s War on Terror has once again forced a reckoning requiring Americans to balance liberty and national security in wartime. President Bush has stated, "[w]e believe in democracy and rule of law and the Constitution. But we're under attack.” President Bush, Attorney General Ashcroft and other governmental leaders have argued that in war, "the Constitution does not give foreign enemies …