Presidential War Power: Second Edition, Revised

by Louis Fisher

A classic and bestselling work by one of our top Constitutional scholars, Presidential War Power garnered the lead review in the New York Times Book Review and raised essential issues that have only become more timely, relevant, and controversial since its initial publication nearly a decade ago. In this new edition, Louis Fisher updates his arguments throughout, critiques the presidential actions of William Clinton and George W. Bush, and challenges their dangerous expansion of executive power. Spanning the life of the Republic from the Revolutionary Era to the nation's post-9/11 wars, the new edition now € New military initiatives including the Use of Force Act, the Iraq Resolution of 2002, George W. Bush's new "preemption doctrine," and his order authorizing military tribunals. € President Clinton's overt and covert military actions in Bosnia and against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. € George H. W. Bush's reasons for not pushing on to Baghdad to overthrow Saddham Hussein after DESERT STORM. € Numerous Congressional initiatives, including a 1995 effort to amend the War Powers Resolution and a proposed 1998 amendment to use the power of the purse to limit presidential military initiatives. € The 1998 CIA "whistle-blowing" statute. € New sections on the Vandenberg Resolution of 1948, the "Little Sarah" incident of 1793, and early apparent precedents that did not make the President the "sole organ" of foreign affairs. € New material on letters of marque and reprisal, the law of nations, presidential "fame," and the contributions of Joseph Story.

Genres: Politics, History, Political Science, Nonfiction, Law, Presidents, American

334 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1995

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm right in the middle of 3 and 4 stars with this one so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt with 4. The book was extremely interesting and well argued. So well argued that I'd say the central tenant of the book, that the power of the president to wage war unilaterally has grown beyond what it is constitutional, legal, or wise, is indisputable. The book spans the whole of US history to the Obama Administration so it is a comprehensive account of the slow but increasing (since WW2) cession of war powers from the congress to the President and I strongly recommend it to anyone with political or even military/military history interests.

I have 2 main complains. First, the book shows anti-war bias beyond the merely anti-illegal wars argument I think it is really trying to make. It isn't severe but is definitely noticeable, and I think it makes the legality point so well introduces other biases just detracts from that. Second, it often references that courts refuse to rule on many decisions brought by citizens or legislators throughout the book, but without really explaining why until the final chapter. I don't think that the given explanations are enough for the average reader. I think the layman comes away from this book feeling tha the courts are weak and bordering on useless in what seems to be logical checks on executive expansion clearly laid out in the constitution, and that does not seem to be the author's goal.

Overall it is definitely a good read for those interested in politics, law, or military affairs. Give it a try.

[Ezra · Rating 3 out of 5]

If cries of "no war for oil" and "Impeach Bush" feel a bit shallow, albiet well intentioned, this book will provide you the proper historical background for just how far President Bush stepped over the line with our most recent forray in the Middle East.

This is an academic text though, so it's slow going.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

this guy wrote the book on presidential war power. looks closely at the constitutional limits to the Pres, both as intended and in practice. Provides the history, but is pretty boring.

[Ariana · Rating 4 out of 5]

For anyone who is interested to know what powers are actually delegated to the executive branch vs. what power the executive branch took (with congressional consent).

[Christian Lindke]

Politics