Monday, November 09, 2015

Law and Ideology in the National Security State -- Legal History panel roundtable

Mary L. Dudziak

At the American Society for Legal History annual meeting recently, I had the pleasure of chairing a panel on Law and Ideology in the National Security State. All of the panelists presented work that intersects with past discussions on this blog, so I've organized a roundtable to bring the panel to Balkinization.

Over the next few days, I will post contributions by Aziz Rana, Cornell Law School; Jeremy Kessler, Columbia Law School; Anne Kornhauser, Department of History, CUNY; and the panel commentator Chrisopher Capozzola, Department of History, MIT.

These scholars all see American constitutionalism as deeply affected by the United States role in the world. They differ in the ways they periodize global influence, and in the kinds of outside influences that matter. And though national security is the conceptual frame for the panel, these contributions -- explicitly or implicitly -- work with different ideas about what national security was thought to  require, and even what it is that American constitutionalism was securing. Together, however, they make clear that scholars examining the path of American constitutional history must set the story in the context of the U.S. role in the world.

Comments will be open, at least for now.


Mary, I am very much interested in this series of posts. At a comment by me on one of the posts, I referenced an article at TomGram that I thought tied into the subject. Here is another TomGram at:

with a relatively short introduction to Greg Grandin's "Kissinger, the Bombardier, How Diplomacy by Air Power Became an All-American Tradition" discussing the "state of eternal law" from Vietnam to Syria and the national security state. I think the narrative may fit well with this series of posts. Grandin's article starts with an "amusing" discussion between Kissinger and Samantha Power at a NY Yankees game, he being a Yankee fan and she a Red Sox fan. But then it quickly gets into events pushed by Kissinger early in the Nixon Administration with segues into wars that followed.

I apologize if this is an unwelcome intrusion but what happened and is still happening on the ground (via the air, to be more concise) might add narrative to the posts.

I just finished reading the 3rd post by Anne Kornhauser that focuses on German emigre intellectuals trained in law, primarily on Neumann and Friedrich. It was most interesting. However, comments are not permitted on that post. And I am not suggesting that comments be opened, as there are issues concerning relevancy of comments (to which I plead guilty at times). But I wish to note that Kissinger could be considered a German emigre intellectual although not trained in the law, and he seems to have departed from the views of Neumann and Friedrich. Perhaps Prof. Kornhauser has addressed Kissinger in her book to compare with Greg Grandin's article referenced in my earlier comment.

What is becoming more obvious to me is that the national security state seems to operate in secrecy without much congressional or judicial oversight, whereas the Administrative State was created by Congress and has been subjected to some review by the courts. There seems to be a political divide between conservatives and liberals on these states (although both groups have shared in the national security state beginning with WW II).

I eagerly await the 4th post.

I think more updates and will be returning. I have filtered for qualified edifying substance of this calibre all through the past various hours.
Jaya Liga

Nice post. I learn something more challenging on different blogs everyday. It will always be stimulating to read content from other writers and practice a little something from their store. I’d prefer to use some with the content on my blog whether you don’t mind. Natually I’ll give you a link on your web blog. Thanks for sharing. Best Source Best Source Best Source

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts