SHOPPING HOME
      >  The Books Store   >  Nonfiction   >  Politics   >  International   >  Treaties   <<<   YOU ARE HERE

Shopper's Delight

The Books Store
The Powers Of War And Peace: The Constitution And Foreign Affairs After 9/11


Image: Shopper's Delight: Treaties in The Books Store ~ The Powers Of War And Peace: The Constitution And Foreign Affairs After 9/11
 
 

The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11

 
 
Average Rating:    out of 18 Reviews
Price: $19.00
Sale: $12.25
 
Manufacturer: University Of Chicago Press
EAN (European Article Number): 9780226960326
Number of Items: 1
 
 
Binding: Paperback
Author: John Yoo
Publisher: University Of Chicago Press
Dewey Decimal Number: 343.7301
Publication Date: 2006-10-02
Reading Level: 378
 
 
Description:
Since the September 11 attacks on the United States, the Bush administration has come under fire for its methods of combating terrorism. Waging war against al Qaeda has proven to be a legal quagmire, with critics claiming that the administration's response in Afghanistan and Iraq is unconstitutional. The war on terror—and, in a larger sense, the administration's decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto accords—has many wondering whether the constitutional framework for making foreign affairs decisions has been discarded by the present administration.

John Yoo, formerly a lawyer in the Department of Justice, here makes the case for a completely new approach to understanding what the Constitution says about foreign affairs, particularly the powers of war and peace. Looking to American history, Yoo points out that from Truman and Korea to Clinton's intervention in Kosovo, American presidents have had to act decisively on the world stage without a declaration of war. They are able to do so, Yoo argues, because the Constitution grants the president, Congress, and the courts very different powers, requiring them to negotiate the country's foreign policy. Yoo roots his controversial analysis in a brilliant reconstruction of the original understanding of the foreign affairs power and supplements it with arguments based on constitutional text, structure, and history.

Accessibly blending historical arguments with current policy debates, The Powers of War and Peace will no doubt be hotly debated. And while the questions it addresses are as old and fundamental as the Constitution itself, America's response to the September 11 attacks has renewed them with even greater force and urgency.

“Can the president of the United States do whatever he likes in wartime without oversight from Congress or the courts? This year, the issue came to a head as the Bush administration struggled to maintain its aggressive approach to the detention and interrogation of suspected enemy combatants in the war on terrorism. But this was also the year that the administration’s claims about presidential supremacy received their most sustained intellectual defense [in] The Powers of War and Peace.”—Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times

“Yoo’s theory promotes frank discussion of the national interest and makes it harder for politicians to parade policy conflicts as constitutional crises. Most important, Yoo’s approach offers a way to renew our political system’s democratic vigor.”—David B. Rivkin Jr. and Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky, National Review

 
order Shopper's Delight: Treaties in The Books Store ~ The Powers Of War And Peace: The Constitution And Foreign Affairs After 9/11
 
 
 
 

Customer Reviews
 
Worst Reviews Latest Reviews Best Reviews
 
Review Summary: Horrible read don't waste your time!! Date: 2008-06-16
 
Details: This book proves to be unconstitutional, I cannot believe John Yoo teaches at UC Berkeley, I would be ashamed to call myself a professor and a patriot writing a book like this.
 
Review Summary: Reasoned Date: 2007-05-13
 
Details: John Yoo's book makes cogent arguments based upon a careful legal analysis and established constitutional principles. A fine contribution to the debate of our times.
 
Review Summary: Terrifying Justice Department Double Think Date: 2006-10-06
 
Details: Mr Yoo moves on from his earlier arguments that torture falls at a point slightly short of physical death, organ failure or loss of limb. Mr Yoo makes some interesting if devastating points with his new theories. The President's war powers, he argues, allow him to do, basically, whatever he wants. The President may, if he chooses, crush the genitals of children, maim, torture or kill civilians. In this respect one might remember that Bush ordered an air strike on the house occupied by the infant grandchildren of Saddam Hussein AFTER the end of the Iraq war and even though the house was surrounded by US troops. The President is limited, according to Mr Yoo, only by how he CHOOSES to interpret International Treaties and as he has the power to repudiate such treaties or ignore them entirely (as in the International Human Rights for the Child Treaty, the Geneva Convention or the Treaty of Vienna,) then, this means that presidential power is absolute EVEN if despotic criminal or tyrannical. Mr Yoo appears now to say that the President and his henchmen, cronies and agencies MAY indeed use indiscriminant torture. Mr Yoo however does not adequately explain how the President can thus overturn congressional treaty ratification. As what constitutes a 'time of war' is also up to the President and does not rely on any 'legal' declaration of war (which is a matter of international law to which the US is thus not subject,) then the US may have, effectively, a Despot Emperor for President. Does the 'War on Drugs' thus give the President the same wartime powers as he asserts for his 'War on Terror' - an undeclared war on no particular nation state? Is the US thus always in a state of war? This is interesting, not just semantically, as the District and Supreme Courts appear to agree with Mr Yoo's interpretation, blocking cases connected with this on grounds of national security whilst Congress does not appear to care. Perhaps Clinton should have used Mr Yoo's arguments in the Monical Lewinsky scandal and impeachment hearings. War powers might have thus allowed him to do whatever he wanted with his cigar and to lie about it in the national interest. The problem with Mr Yoo's argument is that Checks and Balances thus no longer appear to exist. Interestingly if one applies Mr Yoo's arguments to their logical end he becomes an eloquent advocate for terrorism or for the Holocaust where the ends justify the use of any means, however horrible. Of course, either this is pretty much nonsense and makes toilet paper of the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, democracy and human rights OR the truth is more terrifying and the US is now a Stalinist or Nazi state. I suspect Mr Yoo could be subject to arrest as a war criminal should he ever leave the United States and visit a civilised country???
 
Review Summary: Yoo has no clue! Date: 2006-06-22
 
Details: The 2 biggest mistakes made by government in my lifetime are Congress giving away war powers in 1965 and 2002. The constitution holds that declaring war is the responsibility of the Congress. If the Executive has grounds for war let him/her present them and Ccongress vote. Twice I have seen Congress abdicate this important power with disasterous results. This is just one of many examples why Yoo has no clue.
 
Review Summary: This book's point about constitutional checks and balances were once taught in 8th grade civics class. Date: 2006-05-26
 
Details: The outrage this book caused on publication is a sign of the incredible ignorance so prevalent these days about was once common knowledge--that the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches exist in parallel under the elegant system of checks and balances of the Constitution, each with their separate skill set and functions. This book is a necessary defense of the traditional constitutional idea that the executive branch has primacy in matters of war, national security, and foreign policy. It is sad that otherwise sensible people like Neal Katyal and Stuart Taylor should tout outre ideas about the Constitution as a big sandbag over the head of the President most especially in war, national security and foreign policy, as if this idea, which is strictly the invention of the left, were Con Law 101. It is so Nixon era. But there you go. The "me generation" took over the academy, threw out all the Rembrandts, and filled it up with their Hello Kitty and Marilyn tchotchkes.
 
More Reviews
 

Similar Products
 
  War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror
 
  Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency (Inalienable Rights)
 
  Presidential War Power
 
  Military Tribunals And Presidential Power: American Revolution To The War On Terrorism
 
  The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration
 

This Product is similar to and may be found in the Following Categories:
 
 

General AAS Qualifying Textbooks
Custom Stores Specialty Stores
Books Red Politics
Political Parties Specialty Stores
Books General
Constitutional Law Law
Subjects Books
General AAS Constitutional Law
Law Subjects
Books Jurisprudence
Perspectives On Law Law
Subjects Books
General Law
Subjects Books
General AAS Law
Subjects Books
Terrorism Current Events
Nonfiction Subjects
Books General
Freedom & Security Politics
Nonfiction Subjects
Books General AAS
Freedom & Security Politics
Nonfiction Subjects
Books Treaties
International Politics
Nonfiction Subjects
Books U.S.
Politics Nonfiction
Subjects Books
General Politics
Nonfiction Subjects
Books General AAS
Politics Nonfiction
Subjects Books
General Constitutional Law
Law Professional & Technical
Subjects Books
General AAS Constitutional Law
Law Professional & Technical
Subjects Books
Paperback Mass Market
Trade Binding (binding)
Refinements Books
Printed Books Format (feature_browse-bin)
Refinements Books