This book features a lively debate between two prominent scholars-Michael A. Genovese and David Gray Adler-on the critical issue of whether the Constitution, written in the 18th Century, remains adequate to the national security challenges of our time. The question of the scope of the president's constitutional authority-if any-to initiate war on behalf of the American people, long the subject of heated debate in the corridors of power and the groves of academe, has become an issue of surpassing importance for a nation confronted by existential threats in an Age of Terrorism. This question should be thoroughly reviewed and debated by members of Congress, and considered by all Americans before they are asked to go to war. If the constitutional allocation of powers on matters of war and peace is outdated, what changes should be made? Is there a need to increase presidential power? What role should Congress play in the war on terror?

The application of the Political Question Doctrine is at a crucial crossroads as the Supreme Court continues to test new 'War on Terrorism' initiatives. Historically, the political question doctrine has held the courts from resolving constitutional issues that are better left to other departments of government, as a way of maintaining the system of checks and balances. However, the doctrine's many ambiguities have allowed a roughly defined juxtaposition of the branches of government during previous years when the Republic was concerned with both international matters and those within its continental confines. The Political Question Doctrine and the Supreme Court of the United States discusses the gradual changes in the parameters of the doctrine, including its current position dealing with increasingly extraterritorial concerns. Nada Mourtada-Sabbah and Bruce E. Cain bring together critical essays that examine the broad issues of judicial involvement in politics and the future of the doctrine. With a wide range of historical and theoretical perspectives, this book will stimulate debate among those interested in political science and legal studies.

This book features a lively debate between two prominent scholars-Michael A. Genovese and David Gray Adler-on the critical issue of whether the Constitution, written in the 18th Century, remains adequate to the national security challenges of our time. The question of the scope of the president's constitutional authority-if any-to initiate war on behalf of the American people, long the subject of heated debate in the corridors of power and the groves of academe, has become an issue of surpassing importance for a nation confronted by existential threats in an Age of Terrorism. This question should be thoroughly reviewed and debated by members of Congress, and considered by all Americans before they are asked to go to war. If the constitutional allocation of powers on matters of war and peace is outdated, what changes should be made? Is there a need to increase presidential power? What role should Congress play in the war on terror?

The application of the Political Question Doctrine is at a crucial crossroads as the Supreme Court continues to test new "War on Terrorism" initiatives. Historically, the political question doctrine has held the courts from resolving constitutional issues that are better left to other departments of government, as a way of maintaining the system of checks and balances. However, the doctrine's many ambiguities have allowed a roughly defined juxtaposition of the branches of government during previous years when the Republic was concerned with both international matters and those within its continental confines. The Political Question Doctrine and the Supreme Court of the United States discusses the gradual changes in the parameters of the doctrine, including its current position dealing with increasingly extraterritorial concerns. Nada Mourtada-Sabbah and Bruce E. Cain bring together critical essays that examine the broad issues of judicial involvement in politics and the future of the doctrine. With a wide range of historical and theoretical perspectives, this book will stimulate debate among those interested in political science and legal studies.

In this provocative and readable volume, eleven leading constitutional authorities challenge "business as usual" in American foreign policymaking. For far too long, they contend, Americans have acquiesced to presidential claims to sweeping executive powers in foreign
affairs-thanks to imperial-minded presidents, a weak-willed Congress, and neglectful scholars.

These authors forcefully argue that the president is not the supreme crafter of foreign policy and that Congress must provide more than a rubber stamp for the president's agenda. Unilateral presidential control of foreign relations, they warn, can pose a grave threat to our nation's welfare and is simply without constitutional warrant.

Combining constitutional theory with keen historical insights, these authors illuminate the roots of presidential abuse of executive power and remind us of the past and potential costs of such disregard for our unique system of checks-and-balances. An essential guide for all concerned citizens and members of Congress, this volume should help revive a proper understanding of this crucial dimension of American democracy.

Political scandals have always demonstrated the capacity of our executive officials for self-inflicted injuries, and the Clinton administration was no exception. Unilateral warmaking, claims of executive privilege and immunity, and last-minute pardons all tested the limits of presidential power, while the excesses of the Special Prosecutor cast doubts on available remedies. For eight years, Republicans and Democrats engaged in guerrilla warfare aimed at destroying the careers and lives of their adversaries while tests of presidential power were resolved by the courts, resulting in a reshaping of the scope and power of the presidency itself.

This book examines the many controversial and important battles that led to the shrinking of the presidency under the law during the Clinton administration. Located at the intersection of law and politics, it helps readers understand the dramatic changes that took place in the relationship of presidential power to the law during the Clinton years and shows how one president's actions--and congressional and legal reactions to them--have altered presidential prerogatives in ways that his successors cannot ignore.

"The Presidency and the Law" offers an assessment of changes in constitutional and legal understanding of the American presidency, exploring such topics as war power, executive privilege, pardon power, impeachment, executive immunity, independent counsel, and campaign finance. In examining these collisions between president and the law, its distinguished contributors bring the lessons of Watergate and Iran-Contra into the Clinton era and contribute to a Madisonian view that presidents should not operate outside statutory and constitutional constraints.

While the essays offer several criticisms of that administration's exercise of power and its interpretation of constitutional provisions and law, many of the authors have been supportive of Clinton and his policy pursuits, and all seek to examine the potential impact of the Clinton administration without being predictive or legalistic. They offer instead commentary, analysis, and criticism that examine the legality and constitutionality of President Clinton's actions within a broader political and historical context.

The presidency is constitutionally weaker and politically more vulnerable than the office Bill Clinton assumed in 1993, and it remains to be seen what impact these changes will have on the presidency in the 21st century. This book points the way to assessing that impact, and is essential reading for anyone concerned with the future of our democracy.