Louis Fisher (1)

This book about Presidential War Power is by a man who at the time of writing was a "Senior Specialist in Separations of Powers at the Congressional Service, Library of Congress." The book was assigned reading for a political science course on the American Presidency taken in college. The book is dedicated: To the republican principle that reserves war-making to the legislature. The founders believed that it was the executive that was most prone to go to war, and so deliberately vested that power in Congress--not the presidency. As Fisher relates, the powers as "Commander-in-Chief" only implies the president has the "duty to repel sudden attacks" as an emergency measure and was designed to be limited in scope.

Fisher gives us an overview of how the war-making powers were increasingly encroached upon by presidents, often aided and abetted by overreaching Supreme Courts. There are some exceptions--Fisher mentions about how President Cleveland actually resisted a bellicose Congress who wanted to declare war against Spain contrary to his wished, and Fisher praises President Eisenhower for the way he consulted and sought the approval of Congress for military actions (although his record in covert actions was different). All in all, ever since President Truman and the Korean War, presidents have gone well beyond what the Congress authorized and have tried to push their powers beyond constitutional limits. Fisher makes several proposals to curb the abuses.

And Fisher is still around. I found this article arguing against giving Obama too much scope in Syria.… (plus d'informations)

This book is a historical interpretation of the War Powers in the Constitution as granted in Article I to Congress and Article II to the President. Fisher makes a "rule of law" argument and asserts that Bush has violated his Constitutional power. The problem is that in making his historical argument, tracing the power to wage war from earlier centuries, Fisher clearly forgot recent history. Shortly after 9/11, Congress was unified. But it did not take long for them to fall into their old routine of political in-fighting. Fortunately they managed to pass the Joint Resolution with Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Aside from that, Congress fell asleep at the switch. This country needed a leader after 9/11, and Bush took the reigns. Now, in hindsight, people want to rip him apart for doing that? People may be really unhappy with a lot of things: the war in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and anything else that I have not mentioned. But to sustain those criticisms, you'll have to make a better argument.… (plus d'informations)