Supreme Court Jurisprudence in Times of National Crisis, Terrorism, and War
A Historical Perspective
By (author) Arthur H. Garrison
Publication date:
13 May 2011Length of book:
500 pagesPublisher
Lexington BooksISBN-13: 9780739151020
From the foundation of the American Republic, presidents have had to deal with both internal and external national security threats. From President Washington and his policy of neutrality during the wars between Great Britain and France in the eighteenth century, to President Lincoln and the war to save the union, to President Wilson during the war to end all wars, to President Roosevelt and war of the Greatest Generation, to President Truman and his steel during the forgotten war, and most recently to President Bush and the War on Terror, presidents have had to use their power as commander-in-chief to meet the challenges of national crisis and war. The judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court, has also played an integral part in the historical development and defining of the commander-in-chief power in times of war and national crisis from the earliest days of the republic. How these powers have grown is a consequence of how the presidents have viewed the office of the presidency and how the judiciary has interpreted the commander-in-chief and executive power clauses of the U.S. Constitution over time.
Supreme Court Jurisprudence in Times of National Crisis, Terrorism, and War provides a chronological review of the major national security and war events in American history. Garrison reviews the great debates between Hamilton and Madison and Chief Justice Roger Taney and Attorney General Edward Bates on presidential executive power and how subsequent presidents have adopted the Hamiltonian view of the presidency. He also examines how Article III courts, specifically the Supreme Court, have defined, expanded, and established boundaries on the commander-in-chief power. With this historical backdrop, Garrison reveals how, for over two centuries, the judiciary has defended the rule of law and maintained the principle that under the U.S. Constitution neither the guns of war nor threats to safety have silenced the rule of law.
Supreme Court Jurisprudence in Times of National Crisis, Terrorism, and War provides a chronological review of the major national security and war events in American history. Garrison reviews the great debates between Hamilton and Madison and Chief Justice Roger Taney and Attorney General Edward Bates on presidential executive power and how subsequent presidents have adopted the Hamiltonian view of the presidency. He also examines how Article III courts, specifically the Supreme Court, have defined, expanded, and established boundaries on the commander-in-chief power. With this historical backdrop, Garrison reveals how, for over two centuries, the judiciary has defended the rule of law and maintained the principle that under the U.S. Constitution neither the guns of war nor threats to safety have silenced the rule of law.
Garrison (Kutztown Univ.) provides extensive treatment of the growth of presidential power in foreign affairs and the rise of judicial power to "maintain constitutional boundaries on presidential power." Beginning with President Washington's 1793 statement of neutrality in the British-French conflict, he documents presidential assertions of power resulting in Congress "losing control over war policy." History has sustained Hamilton in his debate with Madison over presidential power that was instigated by this incident. However, Garrison challenges the maxim that courts provide little protection to civil liberties during national security crises. This maxim has largely arisen due to the fact that the Ex Parte Milligan case limited military commissions only after the Civil War, but the Ex Parte Quirin case during WW II affirmed trials by military commissions for US citizens. In the current war on terror, Garrison asserts the judiciary has brought presidential power under the rule of law by requiring a habeas corpus hearing for presidentially declared enemy combatants and judicial review of treaty-based requirements for military commissions trying violations of the laws of war. The book's implicit message is that Hamilton's view of the judiciary as the institution to preserve the rule of law has been sustained. Summing Up: Recommended. Upper-division undergraduate, graduate, and research collections.