President/Executive Department Commons^™

A Running Start: Getting “Law Ready” During A Presidential Transition, James E. Baker

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

We are headed for our first wartime Presidential transition in forty years. The good news is that this has prompted uncommon attention to the process of transition. The bad news is that transitions are difficult in the best of circumstances; forewarned does not always equal prepared. The United States handles transitions well on a strategic level. Strategic continuity is found in the Constitution. Transition is also part of the rhythm of government. The intelligence community, for example, has a sound tradition of briefing candidates and Presidents-elect. However, there is tactical vulnerability. An outgoing administration may hesitate to initiate all but …

The Twenty Year Test: Principles For An Enduring Counterterrorism Legal Architecture, James E. Baker

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The United States faces three enduring terrorism-related threats. First, there is the realistic prospect of additional attacks in the United States including attacks using weapons of mass destruction (“WMD”). Second, in responding to this threat, we may undermine the freedoms that enrich our lives, the tolerance that marks our society, and the democratic values that define our government. Third, if we are too focused on terrorism, we risk losing sight of this century’s other certain threats as well as the capacity to respond to them, including the state proliferation of nuclear weapons, nation-state rivalry, pandemic disease, oil dependency, and environmental …

The Political Balance Of Power Over The Military: Rethinking The Relationship Between The Armed Forces, The President, And Congress, Geoffery S. Corn, Eric Talbot Jensen

Faculty Scholarship

Recent events related to the planning and execution of the war in Iraq, most notably the perceived 2003 "firing" of then Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, have raised concerns over the effect of Executive Branch dominance of the military and how that dominance impacts the ability of Congress to obtain timely and important information. Such actions, perceived to discourage members of the military from providing candid views to Congress when they differ with the Administration, even if implied instead of express, strike at the very core of the founder's intent to balance military power within the national government. The …

International Law And Constitutional Interpretation: The Commander In Chief Clause Reconsidered, Ingrid Brunk Wuerth

Michigan Law Review

The Commander in Chief Clause is a difficult, underexplored area of constitutional interpretation. It is also a context in which international law is often mentioned, but not fully defended, as a possible method of interpreting the Constitution. This Article analyzes why the Commander in Chief Clause is difficult and argues that international law helps resolve some of the problems that the Clause presents. Because of weaknesses in originalist analysis, changes over time, and lack of judicial competence in military matters, the Court and commentators have relied on second-order interpretive norms like congressional authorization and executive branch practice in interpreting the …

Pakistan's Political Upheaval: The Demise Of Nuclear Democracy, Jared M. Lee

Florida State University Journal of Transnational Law & Policy

No abstract provided.

What’S International Law Got To Do With It? Transnational Law And The Intelligence Mission, James E. Baker

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The United States faces an immediate and continuous threat of terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. The intelligence function and national security law, including international law--or more accurately transnational law--are central to addressing this threat. Indeed, international law is more relevant today in addressing this threat than it was before September 11. Part II of this article describes a continuum of contemporary threats to U.S. national security, with a focus on nonstate terrorism. Part III addresses the role of intelligence and national security law, and in particular law addressed to process, in combating these threats. Part …

An Anti-Authoritarian Constitution? Four Notes, Patrick O. Gudridge

Articles

No abstract provided.

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 Statutory Commander In Chief, Neil Kinkopf

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century. Convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Indiana University School of Law- Bloomington, prominent legal scholars, human rights advocates and government lawyers gathered in Bloomington on October 7, 2005.

Ieepa's Override Authority: Potential For A Violation Of The Geneva Conventions' Right To Access For Humanitarian Organizations?, Jennifer R. White

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that, should the President exercise his override authority to prohibit or restrict the donation of humanitarian articles during an armed conflict involving the United States, the resulting prohibition or restriction would cause the United States to violate its obligations under the Conventions. This Note does not assert that the United States should not have the ability to put in place controls to prevent terrorists from benefiting from donations of funds and other humanitarian items; instead, it asserts that domestic law must tread as lightly and narrowly as possible where a widely accepted multilateral treaty exists and that …

Can Appropriation Riders Speed Our Exit From Iraq?, Charles Tiefer

All Faculty Scholarship

To explore the implications of riders - provisions added to appropriation bills that "ride" on the underlying bill - on the United States' continued military force in Iraq, the author draws three hypotheticals, each focusing on the debate surrounding the policy and political disputes raised by the use of such riders. A "withdrawal" rider, which would authorize funding only if there exists a plan to withdraw American ground troops by a set deadline, remains the most important - and controversial - rider. Riders may also significantly affect wartime policies, like those that limit the President's use of reservists in combat …

Hamdan V. Rumsfeld: Amicus Curiae Brief Of Law Professors In Support Of Petitioner [Presidential Authority Lacking], Theodore J. St. Antoine

Appellate Briefs

This amicus curiae brief in support of Petitioner Hamdan is submitted pursuant to Rule 37 of the Rules of this Court, with the written consent of both petitioner and respondent, whose consent letters have been filed with the Clerk of Court. Amici are law professors, lawyers, and constitutional law scholars who focus professionally on the constitutional questions presented by the President's November 13, 2001 Military Order, Title 3, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, 66 Fed. Reg. 57,833 (Nov. 13, 2001). The issue addressed by this amicus curiae brief - whether the President of …

In The Service Of Secrets: The U.S. Supreme Court Revisits Totten, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 475 (2006), Douglas Kash, Matthew Indrisano

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Emancipation Proclamation And The Commander In Chief Power, Michael S. Paulsen

Georgia Law Review

Levinson, a good Socratic teacher, poses the question what is the relationship of emergency or necessity to constitutional power, constitutional rights, and constitutional interpretation generally, and surrounds it with a characteristically fascinating discussion. But while his leanings are clear, he does not clearly answer the question his discussion poses. One can certainly infer that Levinson dislikes Carl Schmitt's legal theories of emergency, which he sees as justifying Hitler's rise to power. And it certainly comes through quite clearly that Levinson feels the same way about the U.S. Department of Justice's legal analysis concerning detention and interrogation of war prisoners (which …

Fighting Terrorism And Preserving Civil Liberties, James B. Comey

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Irrational War And Constitutional Design: A Reply To Professors Nzelibe And Yoo, Paul F. Diehl, Tom Ginsburg

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Reply proceeds as follows. Part I outlines the argument of the Nzelibe and Yoo paper. Part II considers their principal-agent analysis in the context of the American political system. Part III elaborates on the "democratic peace" literature, demonstrating that it does not support the conclusions that they draw. Part IV addresses the argument that we are in a new strategic situation, such that old rules ought not apply. Part V concludes.

The ‘Rule Of Law’ And The Military Commission, Stephen Ellmann

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Small Emergencies, Kim L. Scheppele

Georgia Law Review

In this Comment, I argue that the "normal" American constitutional order can be seen as thoroughly shot through with emergency law and that this constant sense of emergency has fundamentally shaped the possibilities of American constitutionalism. America is now-and has been since the First World War-virtually always in a state of emergency, one way or another. Sometimes these states of emergency have been local, other times they have been federal, and still other times they have been international. Sometimes these states of emergency have been political; other times they have been economic or social. Sometimes these states of emergency have …

Time To Look Abroad? The Legal Regulation Of Emergency Powers, William E. Scheuerman

Georgia Law Review

The starting point for Professor Levinson's thought-provoking ruminations on emergency power and constitutionalism is his deep skepticism about the Bush Administration's legal response to 9/11.1 In the context of the "war on terror," Professor Levinson accurately recounts, the Administration has claimed the right to override both longstanding domestic and international legal commitments.2 Even strict prohibitions on torture, it seems, are not exempt from the President's constitutionally based prerogative as "Commander in Chief to keep the nation out of harm's way, and only he apparently possesses the rightful authority to determine the fate of accused terrorists. Although many constitutional lawyers will …

Abu Ghraib, Diane Marie Amann

Scholarly Works

This article posits a theoretical framework within which to analyze various aspects of post-September 11 detention policy - including the widespread prisoner abuse that has been documented in the leaks and official releases that began with publication of photos made at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. Examined are the actions of civilian executive officials charged with setting policy, of judicial officers who evaluated it, and military personnel who implemented it. Abuse has been attributed to failures of training or planning. The article concentrates on a different failure, the failure of law to keep lawlessness in check. On September 11, law's map …

Why Nuclear Disarmament May Be Easier To Achieve Than An End To Partisan Conflict Over Judicial Appointments, David S. Law, Sanford Levinson

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Great Writ Of Incoherence: An Analysis Of Supreme Court's Rulings On "Enemy Combatants", Gregory Dolin

All Faculty Scholarship

On June 28, 2004, the United States Supreme Court released its much awaited decisions in the cases posing a challenge to the Executive's self-professed authority to detain and indefinitely hold individuals designated as "enemy combatants." The cases arose from the "war on terrorism" that was launched after the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. When each decision is looked at individually, the result seems to make sense and, given the outcome (affording detainees rights of judicial review), feels good. Yet when these decisions are looked at collectively, it is hard to believe that they were issued by …

Congressional Authorization And The War On Terrorism, Curtis A. Bradley, Jack L. Goldsmith

Faculty Scholarship

This Article presents a framework for interpreting Congress's September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the central statutory enactment related to the war on terrorism. Although both constitutional theory and constitutional practice suggest that the validity of presidential wartime actions depends to a significant degree on their relationship to congressional authorization, the meaning and implications of the AUMF have received little attention in the academic debates over the war on terrorism. The framework presented in this Article builds on the analysis in the Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which devoted significant attention to the …

Clinton's Guantanamo, Brandt Goldstein

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

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

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

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 …

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 …

Lbj's Ghost: A Contextual Approach To Targeting Decisions And The Commander In Chief, James E. Baker

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The moral imperative and relevance of the Law of Armed Conflict (“LOAC”) is more apparent today than before September 11, 2001. Law distinguishes democratic societies from the terrorists who attack them; nowhere is this more apparent than in the methods and means of warfare. Indeed, part of our revulsion and contempt for terrorism lies in the terrorists' indiscriminate, disproportionate, and unnecessary violence against civilians. In contrast, the enduring strength of the LOAC is its reliance on the principles of proportionality, necessity, and discrimination, which protect civilians and minimize combatant suffering. For these reasons, we should not begrudge the LOAC's limitations …

Authorization To Kill Terrorist Leaders And Those Who Harbor Them: An International Analysis Of Defensive Assassination, Brenda L. Godfrey

San Diego International Law Journal

The purpose of this Comment is to explore the legal justification for the targeted killing of a terrorist leader as an act of self-defense. In particular, the focus of this Comment will be on the interpretation of the self-defense doctrine under customary international law and the United Nations Charter. First, this Comment will examine the background and common definitions of assassination. Then, the focus will shift to an evaluation of the relevant customary international law and the Caroline doctrine. Next, this Comment will analyze the United Nations Charter, Article 51 as it relates to a claim of self-defense in response …

Editor's Note, Padraig O'Malley

New England Journal of Public Policy

Much has changed in the world since the last issue of this journal. All is indeed changed and changed utterly. But we have no terrible beauty with which to console ourselves. For the foreseeable future, the debate over whether we live in a unilateral or multilateral world is moot. A new Rome rules with an arrogance only the truly certain can master.

The invasion of Iraq definitively answered the question: What is the New World Order? America is, and America’s order will continue until Americans themselves decide otherwise, and that, in the short term at least, means whether they will …