The Law : In Service to Power: Legal Scholars as Executive Branch Lawyers in the Obama Administration (original) (raw)
Related papers
Apologists for Power: The Yoo Brief, Executive Power and the State of Exception
Australian Journal of Politics and History, 2015
This paper examines the legal and political arguments of those who support an expansive interpretation of US executive power in the face of threats to the state, taking a comparative historical perspective. It discusses the rationale for this approach by locating its historical origins in international and American jurisprudence, thereby placing them in a modern context. Attention is paid to the points made by various legal representatives of the Bush administration such as John Choon Yoo and Jay S. Bybee. Their views on an expansive response to state emergencies are based on a reading of executive power that informs the Bush administration's approach to law between 2001 and 2008. But this paper goes further in arguing that a common political-juridical ground exists between various critics of the Bush administration, and those who formulated the policies of torture and rendition. This common ground on the subject of executive power in response to emergency lies primarily in the examination of the state of exception examined by Giorgio Agamben. This approach has various implications as to the general exercise of power by the executive in a democratic system. Legem non habet necessitas. Necessity knows no law. Augustine, Soliloquium, 2.
Politics as Law: Juridified Executive Unilateralism in the Global War on Terror
2019
In this dissertation, I examine the Bush administration’s uniquely legal strategy to monopolize policy-making in the Global War on Terror. First, I situate juridified executive unilateralism (JEU) in the context of juridification. I argue that the Watergate Regime (the hypothesized critical juncture), a legislatively imposed quasi-constitutional corrective, formalized previously informally exercised presidential powers, fundamentally affected institutional power relations, altered the concept of legitimacy, and amplified the policy-making potential of legal actors within the Executive Branch. As a result, Watergate created disincentives for inter-branch politics and incentives for conflict resolution with reference to law. I hypothesize that due to the juridification of inter-branch politics, the Office of Legal Counsel’s (OLC) opinions function as a form of quasijudicial legislation that obviates recourse to inter-branch policy processes. In the empirical chapters, I analyze the Bu...
Justice and Justices: The Judicial Branch and US Counterterrorism Policy
The examination of US counterterrorism policies and the US’s shift towards a preventive security paradigm routinely overlook the contributions of the Judicial Branch. This dissertation addresses this oversight by introducing two new theoretical mechanisms, the invisible judicial hand and norm confirmation, to analyze how the judiciary influences policy. Using these mechanisms and key judicial norms like the doctrine of precedent and deference on national security matters, the post-9/11 surveillance and detention regimes are critically deconstructed to show how they were molded by pre-9/11 judicial decisions. This analysis concludes that post-9/11 US counterterrorism policies were path dependent because of judicial precedents dating back to the American Civil War, and that the focus on the Executive and Legislative branches may be misplaced. This conclusion raises new questions about how international relations and security scholars study US national security policies, and suggests that the US judiciary indirectly influences global security norms.
The Letter of the Law: Administrative Discretion and Obama’s Domestic Unilateralism
The Forum, 2014
In his 2014 State of the Union address Barack Obama pledged to act without Congress on a variety of fronts, following up his “we can’t wait” campaign of unilateralism before the 2012 election. The partisan furor this engendered tended to obscure the longstanding efforts of presidents to “faithfully execute” the law in a manner that aligns with their policy preferences. This paper examines the broad logic of those efforts, and delineates five areas where the Obama administration has been particularly aggressive: in its (1) recess appointments; (2) refusal to defend federal law (notably, the Defense of Marriage Act) in court; (3) use of prosecutorial discretion in declining to pursue violations of immigration and drug laws; (4) use of waivers; and (5) its utilization of the regulatory process to interpret the meaning of statutes, as with the Clean Air Act and the Affordable Care Act. Presidents do have flexibility in many cases; but this ends where they seek to alter the plain “letter...
Executive Branch Self-Policing in Times of Crisis: The Challenges for Conscientious Legal Analysis
Presidential advisers, both Democratic and Republican, long ago discovered ways to magnify presidential power at the cost of legal principles and the system of checks and balances. This essay briefly considers the limits to executive branch capacity to provide reliable legal and constitutional analysis in times of emergency, including covert military operations. It highlights the special risks government faces when the circle of presidential advisers narrows because of highly classified operations and there is less opportunity for senior officials, including attorneys, to pass judgment on pending initiatives.
The Courts in National Security Policy
The Compass, 2019
Presidential authority in the realm of national security policy has increased since George Washington’s administration. The most noticeable expansion of America’s position in global hegemon followed the allied victory in World War II. Accompanying the rapid increase in the Executive Branch’s authority has been deference from the traditional constraints on the President’s power, namely Congress and public opinion. This paper seeks to answer the question of whether the Judicial Branch, specifically the Supreme Court, has acted overall to constrain or enable the expansion of presidential war powers. This question will be examined through a qualitative analysis of existing academic literature and Supreme Court opinions. Introduction Since the end of World War II, the Executive Branch of the United States government has expanded its scope of power. The rise of American global hegemony was further solidified with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Presidents since George Washington hav...
Presidential advisers, both Democratic and Republican, long ago discovered ways to magnify presidential power at the cost of legal principles and the system of checks and balances. This essay briefly considers the limits to executive branch capacity to provide reliable legal and constitutional analysis in times of emergency, including covert military operations. It highlights the special risks government faces when the circle of presidential advisers narrows because of highly classified operations and there is less opportunity for senior officials, including attorneys, to pass judgment on pending initiatives.