an unanticipated consequence of
Jack M. Balkin
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Bernard Harcourt harcourt at uchicago.edu
Scott Horton shorto at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman marty.lederman at comcast.net
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at princeton.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
In his questioning yesterday, Senator Leahy asked Judge Roberts a series of questions about whether Congress can, by statute, require cessation of military hostilities or prohibit the President from using torture.
Perhaps it isn't at this moment as politically salient as contentious issues such as abortion and the Commerce Clause, but there are few, if any, issues more important than whether Congress has the constitutional power to restrict certain forms of military action or presidential wartime conduct.
Thankfully, Judge Roberts has testified that the torture-prohibition question falls within Category III of Justice Jackson's justly famous Youngstown concurrence -- that is, it's a case in which Congress has spoken clearly and has prohibited certain presidential action pursuant to the legislature's express article I authorities, and thus the President's power is "at its lowest ebb." There is no such concession (or even citation to Youngstown) in the infamous OLC Torture Memo. (See my posts here and here.) Therefore, Roberts's testimony might be seen as a major step away from the current Administration's views.
Unfortunately, Judge Roberts did not go so far as to say that the torture statute is actually constitutional even when it restricts the President from using the techniques that he thinks are most effective in defeating the enemy. (In fairness, Senator Leahy did not push Judge Roberts on the question once he conceded that it's a Youngstown Category III case.)
More troubling still, Roberts did not disavow the suggestion in an Executive branch memo he wrote that Congress could not end a war over the President's objection. The memo in question addressed a proposed bill granting a veterans' preference to persons who served in Lebanon between August 20, 1982 and the date the Lebanese operation would end, with the latter defined either by presidential proclamation or by concurrent resolution of Congress. In a February 29, 1984 memo to the White House Counsel, Roberts correctly noted that the concurrent resolution provision would violate INS v. Chadha. He went on to say, in addition, that even if the bill were changed so that hostilities could be ended upon a joint resolution of Congress enacted over presidential veto -- i.e., by statute -- it would present a "difficulty" because "it recognizes a role for Congress in terminating the Lebanon operation," and "I do not think we would want to concede any definitive role for Congress in terminating the Lebanon operation" (emphasis in original). Although Roberts did not expressly state that a statute terminating the Lebanon operation would be unconstitutional, the memo could be read to suggest such a constitutional view. (It's only a one-paragraph memo, however -- not a sustained argument -- and so there is some ambiguity.)
In his testimony yesterday, in response to an invitation from Senator Leahy, Judge Roberts was unwilling to concede that if the national legislature passes a law requiring cessation of certain hostilities -- presumably by a supermajority sufficient to override a presidential veto -- the President must abide by that statute:
SENATOR LEAHY: Do we have the power to terminate a war? We have the power to declare war. Do we have the power to terminate war?
ROBERTS: Senator, that's a question that I don't think can be answered in the abstract. You need to know the particular circumstances and exactly what the facts are and what the legislation would be like.
Whether one agrees or disagrees that this question of Congress's power to end military action depends on "the particular circumstances," surely the question -- and Roberts's testimony on it -- is extremely important.
Roberts also testified that "any lawyer for any administration would have taken the same position" on the question that he did in the February 1984 memo -- i.e., that there's a "difficulty" in recognizing any role for Congress in terminating military hostilities. I hope (as a former Executive branch lawyer) that that is not correct -- and if it is, it's extremely troubling.
Later in the day, Senator Durbin asked Roberts: "Would the anti-torture statute be unconstitutional simply because it conflicts with an order issued by the president as commander in chief?" Roberts responded:
"No, Senator. Not simply because of the conflict. And I have to say I don't know -- that's one of the 80,000 memos I don't know about. So I would have to understand what the point was, what the issue was, and the language you read in context before I could respond to that." Posted
by Marty Lederman [link]
Nice blog. Have you seen your google rating? BlogFlux It's Free and you can add a Little Script to your site that will tell everyone your ranking. I think yours was a 3. I guess you'll have to check it out.
Computer News Google plans instant-messaging system, report says
Google Inc. is set to introduce its own instant messaging system, the Los Angeles Times reported on Tuesday, marking the expansion by the Web search leader into text and also voice communications.
Citing unnamed sources "familiar with the service," the Los Angeles Times said that Google's Instant Messaging program would be called Google Talk and could be launched as early as Wednesday.
Google Talk goes beyond text-based instant messaging using a computer keyboard to let users hold voice conversations with other computer users, the newspaper quoted a source as saying.
A Google spokeswoman declined to comment on the company's product plans.
If confirmed, the combined computer text and voice-calling service would put Google in competition with a similar service pioneered by Skype, which has attracted tens of millions of users, especially in Europe, to its own service.
Separately, independent journalist Om Malik on his blog at http://gigaom.com/ pointed to technical clues that suggest Google is preparing to run an instant messaging service based on an open-source system known as Jabber.
Jabber technology would allow Google instant message users to connect with established IM systems that also work with Jabber, including America Online's ICQ and Apple Computer Inc.'s iChat, Malik said.
"This is the worst possible news for someone like Skype, because now they will be up against not two but three giants who want to offer a pale-version of Skype," he wrote.
Earlier this week, Google said it was branching out beyond pure search to help users manage e-mail, instant messages, news headlines and music. It introduced a new service called the Google Sidebar, a stand-alone software program that sits on a user's desktop and provides "live" information updates.
Over the past year or so, the company has expanded into e-mail, online maps, personalized news and more.
The product push comes as rivals Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Time Warner Inc.'s AOL are all pushing to upgrade existing instant messaging systems and expand into new Internet phone-calling services.
Google's moves take it beyond its roots in Web search and closer to becoming a broad-based Internet media company.
With instant messaging, Google would be breaking into a market in which its major competitors boast tens of millions of subscribers to their established instant messaging services.
America Online, with its AIM and ICQ brands, counts more than 40 million IM users in the United States alone. Yahoo has around 20 million and Microsoft's MSN Messenger numbers some 14 million users, according to recent comScore Media Metrix data.
hello, your blog is interesting to read, I have a website about internet marketing, it should be helpful to you in making more web money. This is a global trend that more and more people can make a living online, so make sure you visit it.
Five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. It should be noted that the declaration of the Mexican-American War occurred after America and Mexico had commenced hostilities -- with Congress simply recognizing the existence of a state of war. sportsbook, Thus some historians argue that there have really only been four true declarations. Still other historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against Pancho Villa constitute an additional declaration of war. http://www.enterbet.com
hello friend excellent information about Judge Roberts on Presidential and Congressional War Powers, I don't know nothing about laws and I would like to know if you have any information if sell or buy Generic Viagra may have legal problems???