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."

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"

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

The announced purpose of U.S. antiterrorist policies after 9/11 was to bring democracy and the rule of law to the Middle East. At home, those values were regularly threatened by illegal, unconstitutional, secret, and unaccountable programs. The Bush administration claimed that terrorists hate America for its freedoms, yet its actions jeopardized those freedoms and brought the reputation of the United States lower in the eyes of the world.

Government surveillance. Suspension of habeas corpus. Secret tribunals. Most Americans would recognize these controversial topics from today's headlines. Unfortunately, as Louis Fisher reminds us, such violations of freedom have been with us throughout our history-and continue to threaten the Constitution and the rights that it protects.

Distilling more than two centuries of history into a panoramic and compelling narrative, Fisher chronicles the long-standing tension between protecting our constitutional rights and safeguarding national security, from the Whiskey Rebellion to the McCarthy hearings to George W. Bush's "War on Terror." Along the way, he raises crucial questions regarding our democracy's ongoing tug-of-war between secrecy and transparency, between expediency and morality, and between legal double-talk and the true rule of law.

Fisher focuses especially on how the Bush administration's responses to 9/11 have damaged our constitutional culture and values, threatened individual liberties, and challenged the essential nature of our government's system of checks and balances. His close analysis of five topics-the resurrection of military tribunals, the Guantnamo detainees, the state secrets privilege, NSA surveillance, and extraordinary rendition-places into sharp relief the gradual but relentless erosion of fundamental rights along with an enormous expansion and concentration of presidential power in the post-9/11 era.

For Fisher, the Constitution's strength as a guarantor of freedom and rights is only as sound and reliable as our own commitment to the values it describes. Each generation of Americans is asked in essence: do you want a republic or a monarchy? Benjamin Franklin, of course, famously responded: "A republic, if you can keep it." Fisher's book reminds us of the political principles we need to rediscover to keep our nation free.

When a B-29 bomber exploded over Georgia in 1948, the victims' families were denied access to crucial information relating to the accident because the federal government claimed such access would endanger national security. When the Supreme Court upheld that claim in "United States v. Reynolds" (1953), a new precedent was established, allowing the executive branch to assert an all-encompassing "state secret privilege" as a basis for withholding information from public scrutiny.

For more than fifty years that decision has been viewed with apprehension by a great many scholars and citizens, who feel it has fostered a dangerous cult of secrecy and undermined accountability by declaring that only the executive branch can be trusted with sensitive material. Now Louis Fisher, America's leading authority on separation of powers, recounts the story of Reynolds to reassess its lasting impact on our society.

Taking us back to a time when Americans were preoccupied with protecting military secrets from the Red Menace, Fisher shows how this case produced fundamental distortions in the judicial process that have increased with each passing year. He critiques the government's arguments in Reynolds from district court to Supreme Court and dissects the landmark opinion authored by Chief Justice Fred Vinson. He also explains how Reynolds affected subsequent battles over executive-held information both within the courts-the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate tapes-and between Congress and the president, as exemplified by the Freedom of Information Act and the much-debated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Drawing upon declassified documents and interviews with surviving family members, he weaves a compelling story-one that took a new twist when it was finally discovered that the information originally withheld was not sensitive at all but rather revealed Air Force negligence.

Especially in light of the Bush administration's continued use of Reynolds to justify its post-9/11 claims to unilateral authority, Fisher's work could not be more timely. His book is essential reading for all who question presidential authority-and should be required reading for all who don't.

The 9/11 attacks were not the first operations by foreign terrorists on American soil. In 1942, during World War II, eight Germans landed on our shores bent on sabotage. Caught before they could carry out their missions, under FDR's presidential proclamation they were hauled before a secret military tribunal and found guilty. After the Supreme Court's emergency session upheld the tribunal's authority, six of the men were executed.

Louis Fisher chronicles the capture, trial, and punishment of the Nazi saboteurs in order to examine the extent to which procedural rights are suspended in time of war. One of America's leading constitutional scholars, Fisher analyzes the political, legal, and administrative context of the Supreme Court decision Ex parte Quirin (1942), reconstructing a rush to judgment that has striking relevance to current events.

Fisher contends that the Germans' constitutional right to a civil trial was hijacked by an ill-conceived concentration of power within the presidency, overriding essential checks from the Supreme Court, Congress, and the office of the Judge Advocate General. He reveals that the trials were conducted in secret not to preserve national security but rather to shield the government's chief investigators and sentencing decisions from public scrutiny and criticism. Thus, the FBI's bogus claim to have nabbed the saboteurs entirely on their own was allowed to stand, while the saboteurs' death sentences were initially kept hidden from public view. Fisher also takes issue with the Bush administration's mistaken citing of Ex parte Quirin as an "apt precedent" for trying suspected al Qaeda terrorists.

Concisely designed for students and general readers, this newly abridged and updated edition provides a cautionary tale as our nation struggles to balance individual rights and national security, as seen most clearly in the recent Supreme Court decisions relating to Yaser Esam Hamdi, Jose Padilla, and the "detainees" at Guantanamo.

In wartime, presidents are always tempted to expand their authority. But in doing so, they often reach beyond their constitutional mandate.

Although the use of military tribunals can be necessary and even effective in times of war, Louis Fisher contends that these courts present a grave danger to open government and the separation of powers. Citing the constitutional provision vesting Congress with the authority to create tribunals, Fisher addresses the threats posed by the dramatic expansion of presidential power in time of war-and the meek efforts of Congress and the judiciary to curb it.

"Military Tribunals and Presidential Power" is the only book to offer detailed and comprehensive coverage of these extra-legal courts, taking in the sweep of American history from colonial times to today's headlines. Focusing on those periods when the Constitution and civil liberties have been most severely tested by threats to national security, Fisher critiques tribunals called during the presidencies of Washington, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Truman. He also examines other presidential actions that present military justifications to augment political power, such as suspending the writ of habeas corpus, invoking martial law, and using courts-martial to try U.S. citizens.

Fisher also analyzes how the Bush administration relied heavily on precedents set in World War II-notably the Supreme Court's opinion regarding Nazi saboteurs, Ex parte Quirin, a case shown in recent times to have been a rush to judgment. He scrutinizes the much-publicized cases of John Walker Lindh, Yaser Esam Hamdi, Jose Padilla, Zacarias Moussaoui, and the Guantanamo detainees to reveal how the executive branch has gone far beyond the bounds of even Quirin, and he suggests that it is short-sighted to believe that what was only tolerable half a century ago should be accepted as a given today.

Fisher's primary concern is to show that the breadth of presidential power in time of war comes at the cost of legislative and judicial control-and that military tribunals represent a concentration of power in the executive branch that the United States would be quick to condemn in other countries. His book cuts to the bone of today's controversies and sounds an alarm for maintaining the checks and balances we value as a nation.

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama spoke often about his constitutional principles. In particular, he objected to George W. Bush's claim to certain "inherent" presidential powers that could not be checked by Congress or the judiciary. After his inauguration, how did President Obama's constitutional principles fare? That is the question Louis Fisher explores in this book, a disturbing and timely study of the tension between constitutional aspirations and executive actions in the American presidency. A constitutional scholar, Fisher views Obama's two terms within the context of other presidencies, and in light of the principles set forth by the Framers. His work reveals how the basic system of checks and balances has been substantially altered by Supreme Court decisions, military initiatives, and scholarship promoting the power of the president-and by presidents progressively more inclined to wield that power. In this analysis we see the steps by which Obama, himself an expert on the Constitution, came to press his agenda more and more aggressively through executive actions: on climate change, renewable energy, the auto industry bail-out, education initiatives, and financial reform. Rather than focus on policy, Fisher examines the politics and practical concerns that drive executive overreach, as well as the impact of such expanded powers on bipartisan support, public understanding, and finally, the functioning of government. A fair but critical assessment of Obama's executive performance and legacy, this sobering book documents the erosion of constitutional principles that prepared the way for the presidency of Donald Trump.

When asked which branch of government protects citizens' rights, wetend to think of the Supreme Court-stepping in to defend gay rights, for example, in the recent same-sex marriage case. But as constitutional scholar Louis Fisher reveals in his new book, this would be a mistake-and not just because a decision like the gay marriage ruling can be decided by the opinion of a single justice.Rather, we tend to judge the executive and judicial branches idealistically, while taking a more realistic view of the legislative, with its necessarily messier and more transparentworkings. In Congress, Fisher highlights these biases as he measures the record of the three branches in protecting individual rights-and finds that Congress, far more than the president or the Supreme Court, has defended the rights of blacks, women, children, Native Americans, and religious liberty. After reviewing the constitutional principles that apply to all three branches of government, Fisher conducts us through a history of struggles over individual rights, showing how the court has frequently failed at many critical junctures where Congress has acted to protect rights. He identifies changes in the balance of power over time-a post-World War II transformation that has undermined the system of checks and balances the Framers designed to protect individuals in their aspiration for self-government. Without a strong, independent Congress, this book reminds us, our system would operate with two elected officers in the executive branch and none in the judiciary, a form of government best described as elitist-and one In light of the history that unfolds here-and in view of a Congress widely decried as dysfunctional-Fisher proposes reforms that would strengthen not only the legislative branch's role in protecting individual rights under the Constitution, but also its standing in the democracy it serves.

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"

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 the campaign trail, Barack Obama spoke often about his constitutional principles. In particular, he objected to George W. Bush's claim to certain "inherent" presidential powers that could not be checked by Congress or the judiciary. After his inauguration, how did President Obama's constitutional principles fare? That is the question Louis Fisher explores in this book, a disturbing and timely study of the tension between constitutional aspirations and executive actions in the American presidency. A constitutional scholar, Fisher views Obama's two terms within the context of other presidencies, and in light of the principles set forth by the Framers. His work reveals how the basic system of checks and balances has been substantially altered by Supreme Court decisions, military initiatives, and scholarship promoting the power of the president-and by presidents progressively more inclined to wield that power. In this analysis we see the steps by which Obama, himself an expert on the Constitution, came to press his agenda more and more aggressively through executive actions: on climate change, renewable energy, the auto industry bail-out, education initiatives, and financial reform. Rather than focus on policy, Fisher examines the politics and practical concerns that drive executive overreach, as well as the impact of such expanded powers on bipartisan support, public understanding, and finally, the functioning of government. A fair but critical assessment of Obama's executive performance and legacy, this sobering book documents the erosion of constitutional principles that prepared the way for the presidency of Donald Trump.