Armed interventions in Libya, Haiti, Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea
challenged the US president and Congress with a core question of
constitutional interpretation: does the president, or Congress,
have constitutional authority to take the country to war? "War
Powers" argues that the Constitution doesn't offer a single legal
answer to that question. But its structure and values indicate a
vision of a well-functioning constitutional politics, one that
enables the branches of government themselves to generate good
answers to this question for the circumstances of their own
times.
Mariah Zeisberg shows that what matters is not that the
branches enact the same constitutional settlement for all
conditions, but instead how well they bring their distinctive
governing capacities to bear on their interpretive work in context.
Because the branches legitimately approach constitutional questions
in different ways, interpretive conflicts between them can
sometimes indicate a successful rather than deficient interpretive
politics. Zeisberg argues for a set of distinctive constitutional
standards for evaluating the branches and their relationship to one
another, and she demonstrates how observers and officials can use
those standards to evaluate the branches' constitutional politics.
With cases ranging from the Mexican War and World War II to the
Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iran-Contra scandal, "War
Powers" reinterprets central controversies of war powers
scholarship and advances a new way of evaluating the constitutional
behavior of officials outside of the judiciary.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!