War Powers: The Politics of Constitutional Authority

War Powers: The Politics of Constitutional Authority


Armed interventions in Libya, Haiti, Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea challenged the united states president and Congress with a center query of constitutional interpretation: does the president, or Congress, have constitutional authority to take the rustic to struggle? War Powers argues that the structure does not provide a unmarried felony solution to that query. yet its constitution and values point out a imaginative and prescient of a well-functioning constitutional politics, one who permits the branches of presidency themselves to generate reliable solutions to this query for the conditions in their personal times.

Mariah Zeisberg indicates that what concerns isn't that the branches enact a similar constitutional payment for all stipulations, yet in its place how good they carry their unique governing capacities to undergo on their interpretive paintings in context. as the branches legitimately procedure constitutional questions in numerous methods, interpretive conflicts among them can occasionally point out a winning instead of poor interpretive politics. Zeisberg argues for a suite of specified constitutional criteria for comparing the branches and their courting to each other, and he or she demonstrates how observers and officers can use these criteria to guage the branches' constitutional politics. With situations starting from the Mexican struggle and international warfare II to the chilly conflict, Cuban Missile trouble, and Iran-Contra scandal, War Powers reinterprets critical controversies of struggle powers scholarship and advances a brand new manner of comparing the constitutional habit of officers open air of the judiciary.

Show sample text content

Download sample