The culmination of four decades of research and service on behalf of Congress, Louis Fisher's latest work is a fitting capstone to a remarkable career as scholar and writer and presents his most articulate, passionate, and persuasive defense yet of Congress as an institution.

Our nation's leading authority on the separation of powers, Fisher offers a lucid primer on our nation's government and its executive, legislative, and judicial branches while vigorously advocating a robust reassertion of Congress's rightful role within that system. Drawing on a wide range of legislation, Supreme Court rulings, and presidential decisions, Fisher illuminates the contentious contest among the three major branches for power and control of government, presents a panorama of American history, and touches on issues as wide-ranging as federalism, religious freedom, and national security policy.

Fisher is especially critical of the stereotypical view of the Supreme Court's decisions as possessing a kind of effectiveness and absolute finality that transcends the efforts and powers of Congress. Indeed, he argues that Congress, as much or more than the judiciary, has had a major positive impact on protecting individual rights in this country, while the judiciary has fallen short in such areas as child labor regulation and compulsory flag salute-or has attempted to settle a constitutional issue only to have it fester for years, breeding anger and resentment, until the political process forces the courts rethink their views. He highlights legislative accomplishments in many areas, often in the face of judicial opposition and obstruction, but also chides Congress for not protecting its key prerogatives over the power of the purse and going to war.

In yielding to other branches, Fishers warns, lawmakers fail to represent their constituents and cripple the very system of checks and balances the Framers counted on to limit the destructive capacity of government. His book offers a wealth of forceful insights and provides an important reminder of and guide to how our government should really work.

While the president is the commander in chief, the US Congress plays a critical and underappreciated role in civil-military relations - the relationship between the armed forces and the civilian leadership that commands it. This unique book edited by Colton C. Campbell and David P. Auerswald will help readers better understand the role of Congress in military affairs and national and international security policy. Contributors include the most experienced scholars in the field as well as practitioners and innovative new voices, all delving into the ways Congress attempts to direct the military. This book explores four tools in particular that play a key role in congressional action: the selection of military officers, delegation of authority to the military, oversight of the military branches, and the establishment of incentives - both positive and negative - to encourage appropriate military behavior. The contributors explore the obstacles and pressures faced by legislators including the necessity of balancing national concerns and local interests, partisan and intraparty differences, budgetary constraints, the military's traditional resistance to change, and an ongoing lack of foreign policy consensus at the national level. Yet, despite the considerable barriers, Congress influences policy on everything from closing bases to drone warfare to acquisitions. A groundbreaking study, Congress and Civil-Military Relations points the way forward in analyzing an overlooked yet fundamental government relationship.

"An Engaging Account of life in today's turbulent Russia, this book faithfully presents the richly contradictory views of Muscovites and rural Russians on their work, their families and communities, their government, and their daily lives. Lois Fisher skillfully interweaves anecdote, conversation, and observation to round out the picture of a society in turmoil. Not surprisingly, much of the discussion focuses on the currently most pressing social issues-the economy and economic policy, education, crime, and social welfare. Other highlights include profiles of Kuzbass miners and their families and of former Red Army soldiers waiting in Germany for demobilization. Written by a veteran foreign correspondent in a lively style, this book will have special appeal for students and general readers. The original edition, published in autumn 1991 by Hoffmann und Campe Verlag as Aoeberleben in RuI(2)land, ranked for many weeks as a top nonfiction best-seller. This English edition includes additions and updates on the lives of many of the individuals first encountered in the original edition."

"On the Supreme Court" places the Supreme Court in a rich historical and political context, demonstrating how its interpretations of statutes and the Constitution are necessarily shared with the elected branches, the 50 states, and the general public. It explains why the Court exercises judicial review, not judicial supremacy. It demonstrates that, contrary to popular opinion, the Court does not supply the final or exclusive word on the Constitution. In an era of tectonic changes, "On the Supreme Court" offers a fresh perspective on this mainstay institution from a scholar with unique insights as a Constitutional specialist as well as a Congressional researcher.Key features of the text: "

"An Engaging Account of life in today's turbulent Russia, this book faithfully presents the richly contradictory views of Muscovites and rural Russians on their work, their families and communities, their government, and their daily lives. Lois Fisher skillfully interweaves anecdote, conversation, and observation to round out the picture of a society in turmoil. Not surprisingly, much of the discussion focuses on the currently most pressing social issues-the economy and economic policy, education, crime, and social welfare. Other highlights include profiles of Kuzbass miners and their families and of former Red Army soldiers waiting in Germany for demobilization. Written by a veteran foreign correspondent in a lively style, this book will have special appeal for students and general readers. The original edition, published in autumn 1991 by Hoffmann und Campe Verlag as Aoeberleben in RuI(2)land, ranked for many weeks as a top nonfiction best-seller. This English edition includes additions and updates on the lives of many of the individuals first encountered in the original edition."

Who makes constitutional law? Is constitutional doctrine the monopoly of the courts? In accessible and persuasive prose Louis Fisher explains that constitutional law is not solely or even primarily the Supreme Court's "final word" but rather a richly political convergence of separate interpretations. With a broad range of examples, he argues that constitutional principles emerge from a dialogue among all three branches of government--executive, legislative, and judicial. Important contributions also come from the states and the general public. Fisher identifies executive and legislative initiatives in many areas of constitutional significance. Where there is litigation, the Court generally upholds these initiatives or may avoid making a constitutional decision by using "threshold devices." On those rare occasions when the Supreme Court exercises judicial review and strikes down a presidential or congressional action, it is usually only a matter of time before the proposal is revived and the dialogue begins again.

Originally published in 1988.

The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

Over three decades after its initial publication, Louis Fisher's durable classic remains at the head of its class--a book that "Congressional Quarterly" called "as close to being indispensable as anything published in this field." This newly revised sixth edition emphatically reinforces that sterling reputation.

Fisher dissects the crucial constitutional disputes between the executive and legislative branches of government from the Constitutional Convention through President Clinton's impeachment battles to the recent controversies over President Bush's conduct as commander in chief. He ventures beyond traditional discussions of Supreme Court decisions to examine the day-to-day working relationships between the president and Congress.

By analyzing a mixture of judicial pronouncements, executive acts, and legislative debates, Fisher pinpoints the critical areas of legislative-executive tension: appointment powers, investigatory powers, legislative and executive vetoes, the budgetary process, and war powers. He then examines these areas of tension within a concrete political and historical context.

To scholars, this book offers a comprehensive examination of the institutions and issues of public law. For practitioners, general readers, and students of American government, it demonstrates how constitutional issues shape and define current events.

The new edition covers for the first time:

* Obama's military decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq

* Military operations against Libya in 2011

* Threatened attacks on Syria in 2013

* Efforts to close Guantanamo

* Obama's recess appointments during a pro forma session

* "Fast and Furious" scandal: Holder's contempt and Obama's executive privilege

* The growth of presidential "czars"

* Executive branch secrecy and lack of accountability

* State Secrets Privilege after 9/11

* Distinguishing between "implied" powers (constitutional) and "inherent" powers (not constitutional)

* Pocket vetoes and the growth of "hybrid vetoes"

* New developments in the President's removal power"

It is widely held that foreign affairs, and more particularly issues of war and peace, lie beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny. In the recent case of Campbell v. Clinton, Judges Silberman and Tatel took diametrically opposite positions on the issue. A concurrence by Judge Silberman contended that war power disputes may not be decided by federal courts, while Judge Tatel insisted that the record demonstrates that federal courts have always felt comfortable and competent to adjudicate a number of war/ power issues. Resorting to one or more of the various threshold tests at their disposal, including the political question doctrine, federal courts may decline adjudication on sensitive and discretionary matters. To avoid placing their oar in murky waters, the courts, it is commonly believed, decline to pass on the validity of war/power issues, thus failing by the same token to perform their role as an independent check on the political branches. Moreover, when they do adjudicate such issues, they are said to usually uphold the actions of the executive branch. A closer scrutiny of case law, however, reveals the record to be more complex. It is by no means a foregone conclusion that courts lie back or shy away from war/power disputes. A number of private citizens and private corporations have taken war/power issues into the courts and had their disputes adjudicated, often decided against the President. Lawsuits brought by Members of Congress, are less likely to succeed. They reveal a fairly constant and consistent trend on the part of the judiciary: the courts will perform their traditional constitutional role as a n independent check if the political branches defend their own prerogatives. Lawsuits brought by individual members of Congress are likely to be adjudicated by the courts unless Congress, as an institution, ahs confronted the President. The focus of this book is on cases involving presidential and congressional use of military force in armed conflicts. Several cases dealing with private parties and insurance companies are included because life insurance policies may require courts to decide when the nation is 'at war', or when there is an 'act of war', and when the country is 'engaged' in war. The courts have addressed the issue of war in various contexts and a variety of issues, some more significant than others, for two centuries. This book summarises this ongoing judicial record.

In the fourth of the Federalist Papers, published in 1787, John Jay warned of absolute monarchs who "will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it." More than two centuries later, are single executives making unilateral decisions any more trustworthy? And have the checks on executive power, so critical in the Founders' drafting of the Constitution, held? These are the questions Louis Fisher pursues in this book. By examining the executive actions of American presidents, particularly after World War II, Fisher reveals how the Supreme Court, through errors and abdications, has expanded presidential power in external affairs beyond constitutional boundaries - and damaged the nation's system of checks and balances. Supreme Court Expansion of Presidential Power reviews the judicial record from 1789 to the present day to show how the balance of power has shifted over time. For nearly a century and a half, the Supreme Court did not indicate a preference for which of the two elected branches should dominate in the field of external affairs. But from the mid-thirties a pattern clearly emerges, with the Court regularly supporting independent presidential power in times of "emergency," or issues linked to national security. The damage this has done to democracy and constitutional government is profound, Fisher argues. His evidence extends beyond external affairs to issues of domestic policy, such as impoundment of funds, legislative vetoes, item-veto authority, presidential immunity in the Paula Jones case, recess appointments, and the Obama administration's immigration initiatives. Fisher identifies contemporary biases that have led to an increase in presidential power - including Supreme Court misconceptions and errors, academic failings, and mistaken beliefs about "inherent powers" and "unity of office." Calling to account the forces tasked with protecting our democracy from the undue exercise of power by any single executive, his deeply informed book sounds a compelling alarm.

A classic and bestselling work by one of America's top Constitutional scholars, "Presidential War Power" garnered the lead review in the "New York Times Book Review" and raised essential issues that have only become more timely, relevant, and controversial in our post-9/11 era.

In this third edition, Louis Fisher updates his arguments throughout, critiques the presidential actions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and challenges what he views as their dangerous expansion of executive power. Spanning the life of the Republic from the Revolutionary Era to the War on Terror, the new edition covers for the first time:

Indefinite detention of civilians and non-civilians without trial

-President Obama's failed effort to close Guantanamo

-NSA wiretapping and Fourth Amendment violations

-Presidential decision-making relating to the wind-down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

-U.S. military operations against Libya in 2011

-Continued abuse of the state secrets privilege in national security court cases

-Secret legal memos justifying the use of UAVs or drones for targeted killings overseas

-Extended comparison of the expansion of executive power under George W. Bush and Barack Obama"

Each year billions of dollars are diverted by the President and his assistants from the purposes for which Congress intended them. Billions more are used in confidential and covert ways, without the knowledge of Congress and the public. Here is the first account of how this money is actually spent. Louis Fisher writes: "When it comes to the administration of the budget, we find nothing that is obvious, very little that is visible. Our priorities here are peculiar. We fix upon the appropriations process, watching with great fascination as Congress goes about its business of making funds available to agencies. What happens after that point --the actual spending of money--rarely commands our attention." To unravel the mystery, Louis Fisher has investigated different forms of discretionary action: the transfer of funds that initially financed the Cambodian incursion; impoundment during the Nixon administration; covert financing; the reprogramming of funds; and unauthorized commitments. He describes each of these devices in operation and provides the historical background of Presidential spending power. In conclusion Louis Fisher presents a cogent and timely analysis of what can be done to improve Congressional control. Sufficient control, he maintains, cannot be achieved merely through the appropriations process, and he makes important recommendations designed to preserve discretionary authority while improving Congressional supervision. Originally published in 1975. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

This collaboration of distinguished presidential scholars offers one of the first book-length post-presidency analyses of President George W. Bush and his policies. Mark J. Rozell and Gleaves Whitney have assembled a varied list of contributors from both ends of the political spectrum, bringing together academics and professionals to provide a glimpse into the politics and policies that defined President George W. Bush's presidency. Testing the Limits discusses all aspects of the Bush policy and administration, from staff appointments to foreign and domestic policy to budgetary politics. Several contributors focus their energy on the expansion of presidential powers during Bush presidency, assessing the increased influence of the Vice-President, the politicization of federal court appointments, and the development of executive privilege and presidential secrecy.

Each year billions of dollars are diverted by the President and his assistants from the purposes for which Congress intended them. Billions more are used in confidential and covert ways, without the knowledge of Congress and the public. Here is the first account of how this money is actually spent. Louis Fisher writes: "When it comes to the administration of the budget, we find nothing that is obvious, very little that is visible. Our priorities here are peculiar. We fix upon the appropriations process, watching with great fascination as Congress goes about its business of making funds available to agencies. What happens after that point --the actual spending of money--rarely commands our attention." To unravel the mystery, Louis Fisher has investigated different forms of discretionary action: the transfer of funds that initially financed the Cambodian incursion; impoundment during the Nixon administration; covert financing; the reprogramming of funds; and unauthorized commitments. He describes each of these devices in operation and provides the historical background of Presidential spending power. In conclusion Louis Fisher presents a cogent and timely analysis of what can be done to improve Congressional control. Sufficient control, he maintains, cannot be achieved merely through the appropriations process, and he makes important recommendations designed to preserve discretionary authority while improving Congressional supervision. Originally published in 1975. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

It is widely believed that religious liberty is mainly protected by the independent judiciary, especially for religious denominations that represent a small minority. The view is that legislative bodies -- operating by majority vote -- cannot be expected to protect minority rights, and that judges have the independence and technical expertise to defend the constitutional rights of minorities. However, legislatures -- at both state and national level -- have done much to protect religious liberty, including the views of religious minorities. Even during the past half century, when the judicial record has measurably improved, individuals and private organisations, tend to turn to the elected officials for help, after being turned down by the courts. This book provides the reader with the means by which elected officials, especially members of Congress have protected religious liberty. The examples discussed in this book start with the statutory recognition of the rights of the conscientious objectors and moves to more recent disputes, including compulsory flag salutes, religious apparel in the military, school prayer, Indian religious beliefs and various statutory exemptions adopted by Congress and state legislature to provide a sturdy defence to religious liberty.

Federal judges, legal scholars, pundits, and reporters frequently describe the Supreme Court as the final word on the meaning of the Constitution. The historical record presents an entirely different picture. A close and revealing reading of that record, from 1789 to the present day, Reconsidering Judicial Finality reminds us of the "unalterable fact," as Chief Justice Rehnquist once remarked, "that our judicial system, like the human beings who administer it, is fallible." And a Court inevitably prone to miscalculation and error, as this book clearly demonstrates, cannot have the incontrovertible last word on constitutional questions. In this deeply researched, sharply reasoned work of legal myth-busting, constitutional scholar Louis Fisher explains how constitutional disputes are Settled by all three branches of government, and by the general public, with the Supreme Court often playing a secondary role. The Court's decisions have, of course, been challenged and reversed in numerous cases-involving slavery, civil rights, child labor legislation, Japanese internment during World War II, abortion, and religious liberty. What Fisher shows us on a case-by-case basis is how the elected branches, scholars, and American public regularly press policies contrary to Court rulings-and regularly prevail, although the process might sometimes take decades. From the common misreading of Marbury v. Madison, to the mistaken understanding of the Supreme Court as the trusted guardian of individual rights, to the questionable assumptions of the Court's decision in Citizens United, Fisher's work charts the distance and the difference between the Court as the ultimate arbiter in constitutional matters and the judgment of history. The verdict of Reconsidering Judicial Finality is clear: to treat the Supreme Court's nine justices as democracy's last hope or as dangerous activists undermining democracy is to vest them with undue significance. The Constitution belongs to all three branches of government-and, finally, to the American people.

Who makes constitutional law? Is constitutional doctrine the monopoly of the courts? In accessible and persuasive prose Louis Fisher explains that constitutional law is not solely or even primarily the Supreme Court's "final word" but rather a richly political convergence of separate interpretations. With a broad range of examples, he argues that constitutional principles emerge from a dialogue among all three branches of government--executive, legislative, and judicial. Important contributions also come from the states and the general public. Fisher identifies executive and legislative initiatives in many areas of constitutional significance. Where there is litigation, the Court generally upholds these initiatives or may avoid making a constitutional decision by using "threshold devices." On those rare occasions when the Supreme Court exercises judicial review and strikes down a presidential or congressional action, it is usually only a matter of time before the proposal is revived and the dialogue begins again. Originally published in 1988. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush issued a military order to provide for the detention, treatment, and trial of those who assisted the terrorist attacks on the two World Trade Center buildings in New York City and the Pentagon on September 11. In creating a military commission (tribunal) to try the terrorists, President Bush modeled his tribunal in large part on a proclamation and military order issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942, after the capture of eight German saboteurs. This report describes the procedures used by the World War II military tribunal to try the eight Germans, the habeas corpus petition to the Supreme Court, and the resulting convictions and executions. Why was the tribunal created, and why were its deliberations kept secret? How have scholars evaluated the Court's decision in Ex parte Quirin (1942)? The decision was unanimous, but archival records reveal division and disagreement among the Justices. Also covered in this report is a second effort by Germany two years later to send saboteurs to the United States. The two men captured in this operation were tried by a military tribunal, but under conditions and procedures that substantially reduced the roles of the President ...

"On the Supreme Court" places the Supreme Court in a rich historical and political context, demonstrating how its interpretations of statutes and the Constitution are necessarily shared with the elected branches, the 50 states, and the general public. It explains why the Court exercises judicial review, not judicial supremacy. It demonstrates that, contrary to popular opinion, the Court does not supply the final or exclusive word on the Constitution. In an era of tectonic changes, "On the Supreme Court" offers a fresh perspective on this mainstay institution from a scholar with unique insights as a Constitutional specialist as well as a Congressional researcher.Key features of the text: "

Constitutional law is clearly shaped by judicial actors. But who else contributes? Scholars in the past have recognized that the legislative branch plays a significant role in determining structural issues, such as separation of powers and federalism, but stopped there-claiming that only courts had the independence and expertise to safeguard individual and minority rights. In this readable and engaging narrative, the authors identify the nuts and bolts of the national dialogue and relate succinct examples of how elected officials and the general public often dominate the Supreme Court in defining the Constitution's meaning. Making use of case studies on race, privacy, federalism, war powers, speech, and religion, Devins and Fisher demonstrate how elected officials uphold individual rights in such areas as religious liberty and free speech as well as, and often better than, the courts. This fascinating debunking of judicial supremacy argues that nonjudicial contributions to constitutional interpretation make the Constitution more stable, more consistent with constitutional principles, and more protective of individual and minority rights.

Though few question the importance of America's war on terror, President George W Bush's decision to try suspected terrorists before a military tribunal raises worries and questions about the protection of civil liberties and the rights of defendants in a trial. Vocal critics demanded that administration rescind the order because the tribunals would not incorporate the fair trial provisions enshrined in the American Constitution. Standards of evidence would be lowered and military panels were less likely to give a fair hearing to those detained as terrorists, the critics said. In response, government officials said that Constitutional rights do not apply to non-citizens and that the process would be devised so that trials would be fair and impartial. Besides, the administration also cited the historical precedents for military tribunals and the Supreme Court decision upholding their constitutionality. President Franklin D Roosevelt authorised a military tribunal to try German saboteurs during World War II and was supported by a unanimous Supreme Court. The facts and issues surrounding Roosevelt's tribunal and the Supreme Court decision are presented in this book along with a second military trial under the Roosevelt administration. The rancorous debate about the make-up and application of military tribunals demands informed opinions and analyses. In order to fully understand the basis and precedent for the Bush administration's controversial decision, one needs to examine the history behind this issue.

Federal judges, legal scholars, pundits, and reporters frequently describe the Supreme Court as the final word on the meaning of the Constitution. The historical record presents an entirely different picture. A close and revealing reading of that record, from 1789 to the present day, Reconsidering Judicial Finality reminds us of the “unalterable fact,” as Chief Justice Rehnquist once remarked, “that our judicial system, like the human beings who administer it, is fallible.” And a Court inevitably prone to miscalculation and error, as this book clearly demonstrates, cannot have the incontrovertible last word on constitutional questions.In this deeply researched, sharply reasoned work of legal myth-busting, constitutional scholar Louis Fisher explains how constitutional disputes are settled by all three branches of government, and by the general public, with the Supreme Court often playing a secondary role. The Court’s decisions have, of course, been challenged and reversed in numerous cases—involving slavery, civil rights, child labor legislation, Japanese internment during World War II, abortion, and religious liberty. What Fisher shows us on a case-by-case basis is how the elected branches, scholars, and American public regularly press policies contrary to Court rulings—and regularly prevail, although the process might sometimes take decades. From the common misreading of Marbury v. Madison, to the mistaken understanding of the Supreme Court as the trusted guardian of individual rights, to the questionable assumptions of the Court’s decision in Citizens United, Fisher’s work charts the distance and the difference between the Court as the ultimate arbiter in constitutional matters and the judgment of history. The verdict of Reconsidering Judicial Finality is clear: to treat the Supreme Court’s nine justices as democracy’s last hope or as dangerous activists undermining democracy is to vest them with undue significance. The Constitution belongs to all three branches of government—and, finally, to the American people.

The scope of presidential authority has been a constant focus of constitutional dispute since the Framing. The bases for presidential appointment and removal, the responsibility of the Executive to choose between the will of Congress and the President, the extent of unitary powers over the military, even the ability of the President to keep secret the identity of those consulted in policy making decisions have all been the subject of intense controversy. The scope of that power and the manner of its exercise affect not only the actions of the President and the White House staff, but also all staff employed by the executive agencies. There is a clear need to examine the law of the entire executive branch. The Law of the Executive Branch: Presidential Power, places the law of the executive branch firmly in the context of constitutional language, framers' intent, and more than two centuries of practice. In this book, Louis Fisher strives to separate legitimate from illegitimate sources of power, through analysis that is informed by litigation as well as shaped by presidential initiatives, statutory policy, judicial interpretations, and public and international pressures. Each provision of the US Constitution is analyzed to reveal its contemporary meaning in concert with the application of presidential power. Controversial issues covered in the book include: unilateral presidential wars; the state secrets privilege; extraordinary rendition; claims of "inherent" presidential powers that may not be checked by other branches; and executive privilege.