E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.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
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
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 yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
can be found here. It would provide that nothing in the force authorization for Iraq, "or any other provision of law," shall be construed to authorize, encourage, or in any way address the use of the Armed Forces of the United States against Iran."
It's very good, as far as it goes. The problem, of course, is that it would be vetoed by President Bush. (And even if it were to become law over his veto, you can be sure Bush would not hesitate to invoke an asserted constitutional authority to use the Armed Forces in Iran, even though, depending on the circumstances, there'd be a very serious constitutional question whether he has such authority. The Obama Resolution does not purport (not expressly, anyway) to restrict the President's constitutional authority, whatever that authority might be.) Posted
3:35 AM
by Marty Lederman [link]
Comments:
"It would provide that nothing in the force authorization for Iraq, "or any other provision of law," shall be construed to authorize, encourage, or in any way address the use of the Armed Forces of the United States against Iran."
"In any way address"? Is that really what they want to say here?
After Bush has gone ahead and started a war with Iran, based on his alleged Article II authority, I can see a future Supreme Court decision that rules that no U.S. laws banning torture apply to Iran because Congress had quite clearly stated that no legal provision "in any way" addresses the use of force in Iran.