|
Showing 1 - 7 of
7 matches in All Departments
The world today is overwhelmed by wars between nations and within
nations, wars that have dominated American politics for quite some
time. Point of Attack calls for a new understanding of the grounds
for war. In this book John Yoo argues that the new threats to
international security come not from war between the great powers,
but from the internal collapse of states, terrorist groups, the
spread of weapons of mass destruction, and destabilizing regional
powers. In Point of Attack he rejects the widely-accepted framework
built on the U.N. Charter and replaces it with a new system
consisting of defensive, pre-emptive, or preventive measures to
encourage wars that advance global welfare. Yoo concludes with an
analysis of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, failed states, and the
current challenges posed by Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Iran.
In 1997, a Mexican national named Jose Ernesto Medellin was
sentenced to death for raping and murdering two teenage girls in
Texas. In 2004, the International Court of Justice ruled that he
was entitled to appellate review of his sentence, since the
arresting officers had not informed him of his right to seek
assistance from the Mexican consulate prior to trial, as prescribed
by a treaty ratified by Congress in 1963. In 2008, amid fierce
controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the international
ruling had no weight. Medellin subsequently was executed.
As Julian Ku and John Yoo show in Taming Globalization, the
Medellin case only hints at the legal complications that will
embroil American courts in the twenty-first century. Like Medellin,
tens of millions of foreign citizens live in the United States; and
like the International Court of Justice, dozens of international
institutions cast a legal net across the globe, from border
commissions to the World Trade Organization. Ku and Yoo argue that
all this presents an unavoidable challenge to American
constitutional law, particularly the separation of powers between
the branches of federal government and between Washington and the
states. To reconcile the demands of globalization with a
traditional, formal constitutional structure, they write, we must
re-conceptualize the Constitution, as Americans did in the early
twentieth century, when faced with nationalization. They identify
three "mediating devices" we must embrace: non-self-execution of
treaties, recognition of the President's power to terminate
international agreements and interpret international law, and a
reliance on state implementation of international law and
agreements. These devices will help us avoid constitutional
difficulties while still gaining the benefits of international
cooperation.
Written by a leading advocate of executive power and a fellow
Constitutional scholar, Taming Globalization promises to spark
widespread debate.
Since the September 11 attacks on the United States, the Bush
administration has come under fire for its methods of combating
terrorism. Waging war against al Qaeda has proven to be a legal
quagmire, with critics claiming that the administration's response
in Afghanistan and Iraq is unconstitutional. The war on
terror--and, in a larger sense, the administration's decision to
withdraw from the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto accords--has many
wondering whether the constitutional framework for making foreign
affairs decisions has been discarded by the present administration.
John Yoo, formerly a lawyer in the Department of Justice, here
makes the case for a completely new approach to understanding what
the Constitution says about foreign affairs, particularly the
powers of war and peace. Looking to American history, Yoo points
out that from Truman and Korea to Clinton's intervention in Kosovo,
American presidents have had to act decisively on the world stage
without a declaration of war. They are able to do so, Yoo argues,
because the Constitution grants the president, Congress, and the
courts very different powers, requiring them to negotiate the
country's foreign policy. Yoo roots his controversial analysis in a
brilliant reconstruction of the original understanding of the
foreign affairs power and supplements it with arguments based on
constitutional text, structure, and history.
Accessibly blending historical arguments with current policy
debates, "The Powers of War and Peace" will no doubt be hotly
debated. And while the questions it addresses are as old and
fundamental as the Constitution itself, America's response to the
September 11 attacks has renewed them with even greaterforce and
urgency.
"Can the president of the United States do whatever he likes in
wartime without oversight from Congress or the courts? This year,
the issue came to a head as the Bush administration struggled to
maintain its aggressive approach to the detention and interrogation
of suspected enemy combatants in the war on terrorism. But this was
also the year that the administration's claims about presidential
supremacy received their most sustained intellectual defense [in]
"The Powers of War and Peace,""--Jeffrey Rosen, "New York"" Times
""Yoo's theory promotes frank discussion of the national interest
and makes it harder for politicians to parade policy conflicts as
constitutional crises. Most important, Yoo's approach offers a way
to renew our political system's democratic vigor."--David B. Rivkin
Jr. and Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky, "National Review
"
In The Administrative State Before the Supreme Court: Perspectives
on the Nondelegation Doctrine, leading scholars consider a revival
of the Constitution’s nondelegation doctrine—the
separation-of-powers principle that bars Congress from transferring
its legislative powers to the administrative agencies. Although the
nondelegation doctrine has lain dormant since 1935, some Supreme
Court justices have recently called for its return. As the Supreme
Court takes up the doctrine in current cases, this volume makes a
timely contribution to our understanding of the separation of
powers and the Constitution.
In The Administrative State Before the Supreme Court: Perspectives
on the Nondelegation Doctrine, leading scholars consider a revival
of the Constitution’s nondelegation doctrine—the
separation-of-powers principle that bars Congress from transferring
its legislative powers to the administrative agencies. Although the
nondelegation doctrine has lain dormant since 1935, some Supreme
Court justices have recently called for its return. As the Supreme
Court takes up the doctrine in current cases, this volume makes a
timely contribution to our understanding of the separation of
powers and the Constitution.
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R383
R318
Discovery Miles 3 180
|