Clear statement principles and national security : Homeland and beyond /

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Author / Creator:Sunstein, Cass R.
Imprint:Chicago, Ill. : Law School, University of Chicago, 2006.
Description:37 p.
Language:English
Series:Public law and legal theory working paper 134.
Subject:
Format: E-Resource Book
URL for this record:http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/6167817
Hidden Bibliographic Details
Other authors / contributors:University of Chicago. Law School.
Notes:"Preliminary draft 8/1/06"--p. [1].
Title from homepage, University of Chicago Law School (viewed on Dec. 11, 2006)
Includes bibliographical references.
Electronic reproduction. Chicago, Ill. : Law School, University of Chicago, 2006. Available via the World Wide Web.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Summary:"In resolving conflicts between individual rights and national security, the Supreme Court has often said that Congress must unambiguously authorize presidential action; the Court has also attempted to ensure that defendants are not deprived of their liberty except pursuant to fair trials. These decisions, a form of liberty-promoting minimalism, reject claims of unilateral or exclusive presidential authority. The Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld reflects a distinctive clear statement principle, one that bans the President from convening a military commission, or otherwise departing from the standard adjudicative forms, unless Congress explicitly authorizes him to do so. The Court's conclusion diverges sharply from a plausible alternative view, which is that in view of the President's role as Commander-in-Chief, he should be permitted to construe ambiguous enactments as he see fits. The Court's approach has implications for numerous other problems involved in the war on terror. Most generally, it suggests the need for clear congressional authorization for presidential action that intrudes on liberty or departs from well-established historical practices. More specifically, it significantly weakens the President's argument on behalf of the legality of warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency."

MARC

LEADER 00000nam a2200000 a 4500
001 6167817
003 ICU
005 20120315102300.0
006 m d
007 cr an|||||||||
008 061213r20062006ilu sb 000 0 eng c
035 |a (OCoLC)76964380 
040 |a CGU  |c CGU  |d UtOrBLW 
042 |a pcc 
043 |a n-us--- 
049 |a CGUA 
100 1 |a Sunstein, Cass R.  |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n89672963  |1 http://viaf.org/viaf/102019194 
245 1 0 |a Clear statement principles and national security :  |b Homeland and beyond /  |c Cass R. Sunstein. 
260 |a Chicago, Ill. :  |b Law School, University of Chicago,  |c 2006. 
300 |a 37 p. 
336 |a text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent  |0 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/contentTypes/txt 
337 |a computer  |b c  |2 rdamedia  |0 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/mediaTypes/c 
338 |a online resource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier  |0 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/carriers/cr 
440 0 |a Public law and legal theory working paper  |v 134. 
500 |a "Preliminary draft 8/1/06"--p. [1]. 
500 |a Title from homepage, University of Chicago Law School (viewed on Dec. 11, 2006) 
504 |a Includes bibliographical references. 
520 |a "In resolving conflicts between individual rights and national security, the Supreme Court has often said that Congress must unambiguously authorize presidential action; the Court has also attempted to ensure that defendants are not deprived of their liberty except pursuant to fair trials. These decisions, a form of liberty-promoting minimalism, reject claims of unilateral or exclusive presidential authority. The Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld reflects a distinctive clear statement principle, one that bans the President from convening a military commission, or otherwise departing from the standard adjudicative forms, unless Congress explicitly authorizes him to do so. The Court's conclusion diverges sharply from a plausible alternative view, which is that in view of the President's role as Commander-in-Chief, he should be permitted to construe ambiguous enactments as he see fits. The Court's approach has implications for numerous other problems involved in the war on terror. Most generally, it suggests the need for clear congressional authorization for presidential action that intrudes on liberty or departs from well-established historical practices. More specifically, it significantly weakens the President's argument on behalf of the legality of warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency." 
538 |a Mode of access: World Wide Web. 
533 |a Electronic reproduction.  |b Chicago, Ill. :  |c Law School, University of Chicago,  |d 2006.  |n Available via the World Wide Web. 
610 1 0 |a United States.  |b Congress  |x Powers and duties. 
650 0 |a Implied powers (Constitutional law)  |z United States.  |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh87005671 
650 0 |a Executive power  |z United States.  |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85046287 
650 0 |a Political questions and judicial power  |z United States.  |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2008109679 
610 1 7 |a United States.  |b Congress.  |2 fast  |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst00529490  |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/529490 
610 1 7 |a United States.  |b Supreme Court.  |2 fast  |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst00529481  |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/529481 
650 7 |a Executive power.  |2 fast  |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst00917857 
650 7 |a Implied powers (Constitutional law)  |2 fast  |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst00968179 
650 7 |a Legislative power.  |2 fast  |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst00995815 
650 7 |a Political questions and judicial power.  |2 fast  |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst01069674 
651 7 |a United States.  |2 fast  |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst01204155 
655 7 |a Trials, litigation, etc.  |2 fast  |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst01423712 
610 1 0 |a United States.  |b Supreme Court  |v Cases. 
710 2 |a University of Chicago.  |b Law School.  |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79060603  |1 http://viaf.org/viaf/127829080 
856 4 0 |u http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/134.pdf 
856 4 0 |u http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=922406 
903 |a HeVa 
929 |a cat 
999 f f |i d7a00129-c346-51ce-a8fb-c974ee2fb7dd  |s 524ad1a5-e181-5823-8935-24ca9dd8fe18 
928 |l Online  |c UC-FullText  |u http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/134.pdf  |g ebooks  |i 7028813 
928 |l Online  |c UC-FullText  |u http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=922406  |g ebooks  |i 7028814