![]() Presidents of both parties have long argued that foreign policy is committed by the Constitution to their exclusive control, and they have had great success in making that claim in the courts. In fascinating detail, to our instruction and even more to our pleasure as readers, he demonstrates that there can be no such animal.Ĭonsider the broad subject of foreign affairs. Of original intention.'' Merciless and brilliant. Levy, a professor of humanities at the Claremont Graduate School in California and one of our leading constitutional historians, is merciless in exposing the follies of what former Attorney General Edwin Meese 3d called ''a jurisprudence He says, display ''either their ignorance or their hypocrisy.'' Levy writes in ''Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution.'' Those who today argue at the same time for original intent and inherent Presidential powers, ''The concept of inherent executive powers was foreign to the For today a school of conservative lawyers and politicians argues that in applying our fundamental law we mustįollow ''the original intent of the Framers.'' Yet those same conservatives, in the Reagan Administration and out, insist that the inherent powers of the President allow him to use the armed forces and involve thisĬountry in hostilities as he wishes - that to subject his military actions to even a modest Congressional check, as in the War Powers Act, is unconstitutional. What a wonderful irony lies in that fact. The intent of the Framers could not be clearer: matters of war and peace were for Congress to decide. ![]() do not include the Rights of war and peace.'' Prerogatives of the British Monarch,'' some of which were really ''of a Legislative nature'' such as ''that of war & peace.'' Madison himself was recorded in Rufus King's notesĪs follows: ''Agrees with Wilson in his definition of executive powers. might extend to peace & war which would render the Executive a Monarchy of the worst kind.'' James Wilson of Pennsylvania said executive powers should not be defined in terms of ''the ![]() Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, as recorded in James Madison's notes, was for ''a vigorous Executive but was afraid theĮxecutive powers. Under which the only national political institution was a legislature, the Continental Congress.ĭelegates supported the proposal, but one after another said the executive must not make policy on war and peace. On June 1, 1787, the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia took up a proposal that the government it was trying to frame should have ''a national Executive.'' That would be a striking departure from the existing Articles of Confederation, ORIGINAL INTENT AND THE FRAMERS' CONSTITUTION By Leonard W. Lead: LEAD: ORIGINAL INTENT AND THE FRAMERS' CONSTITUTION By Leonard W. Section 7, Column 1 Book Review Deskīy ANTHONY LEWIS Anthony Lewis is a columnist for The New York Times. ![]() November 6, 1988, Sunday, Late City Final Edition ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |