Bøger af Louis Fisher

On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush issued a military order to provide for the detention, treatment, and trial of those who assisted the terrorist attacks on the two World Trade Center buildings in New York City and the Pentagon on September 11. In creating a military commission (tribunal) to try the terrorists, President Bush modeled his tribunal in large part on a proclamation and military order issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942, after the capture of eight German saboteurs. This report describes the procedures used by the World War II military tribunal to try the eight Germans, the habeas corpus petition to the Supreme Court, and the resulting convictions and executions. Why was the tribunal created, and why were its deliberations kept secret? How have scholars evaluated the Court's decision in Ex parte Quirin (1942)? The decision was unanimous, but archival records reveal division and disagreement among the Justices. Also covered in this report is a second effort by Germany two years later to send saboteurs to the United States. The two men captured in this operation were tried by a military tribunal, but under conditions and procedures that substantially reduced the roles of the President ...

Federal judges, legal scholars, pundits, and reporters frequently describe the Supreme Court as the final word on the meaning of the Constitution. The historical record presents an entirely different picture. A close and revealing reading of that record, from 1789 to the present day, Reconsidering Judicial Finality reminds us of the unalterable fact, as Chief Justice Rehnquist once remarked, that our judicial system, like the human beings who administer it, is fallible. And a Court inevitably prone to miscalculation and error, as this book clearly demonstrates, cannot have the incontrovertible last word on constitutional questions.In this deeply researched, sharply reasoned work of legal myth-busting, constitutional scholar Louis Fisher explains how constitutional disputes are settled by all three branches of government, and by the general public, with the Supreme Court often playing a secondary role. The Courts decisions have, of course, been challenged and reversed in numerous casesinvolving slavery, civil rights, child labor legislation, Japanese internment during World War II, abortion, and religious liberty. What Fisher shows us on a case-by-case basis is how the elected branches, scholars, and American public regularly press policies contrary to Court rulingsand regularly prevail, although the process might sometimes take decades. From the common misreading of Marbury v. Madison, to the mistaken understanding of the Supreme Court as the trusted guardian of individual rights, to the questionable assumptions of the Court's decision in Citizens United, Fishers work charts the distance and the difference between the Court as the ultimate arbiter in constitutional matters and the judgment of history.The verdict of Reconsidering Judicial Finality is clear: to treat the Supreme Courts nine justices as democracys last hope or as dangerous activists undermining democracy is to vest them with undue significance. The Constitution belongs to all three branches of governmentand, finally, to the American people.

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama spoke often about his constitutional principles. In particular, he objected to George W. Bush's claim to certain "inherent" presidential powers that could not be checked by Congress or the judiciary. After his inauguration, how did President Obama's constitutional principles fare? That is the question Louis Fisher explores in this book.

In the fourth of the Federalist Papers, published in 1787, John Jay warned of absolute monarchs who will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it. More than two centuries later, are single executives making unilateral decisions any more trustworthy? And have the checks on executive power, so critical in the Founders drafting of the Constitution, held? These are the questions Louis Fisher pursues in this book. By examining the executive actions of American presidents, particularly after World War II, Fisher reveals how the Supreme Court, through errors and abdications, has expanded presidential power in external affairs beyond constitutional boundaries—and damaged the nations system of checks and balances.Supreme Court Expansion of Presidential Power reviews the judicial record from 1789 to the present day to show how the balance of power has shifted over time. For nearly a century and a half, the Supreme Court did not indicate a preference for which of the two elected branches should dominate in the field of external affairs. But from the mid-thirties a pattern clearly emerges, with the Court regularly supporting independent presidential power in times of emergency, or issues linked to national security. The damage this has done to democracy and constitutional government is profound, Fisher argues. His evidence extends beyond external affairs to issues of domestic policy, such as impoundment of funds, legislative vetoes, item-veto authority, presidential immunity in the Paula Jones case, recess appointments, and the Obama administration's immigration initiatives. Fisher identifies contemporary biases that have led to an increase in presidential power—including Supreme Court misconceptions and errors, academic failings, and mistaken beliefs about inherent powers and unity of office. Calling to account the forces tasked with protecting our democracy from the undue exercise of power by any single executive, his deeply informed book sounds a compelling alarm.

On the Supreme Court places the Supreme Court in a rich historical and political context, demonstrating how its interpretations of statutes and the Constitution are necessarily shared with the elected branches, the 50 states, and the general public.

When asked which branch of government protects citizens rights, we tend to think of the Supreme Courtstepping in to defend gay rights, for example, in the recent same-sex marriage case. But as constitutional scholar Louis Fisher reveals in his new book, this would be a mistakeand not just because a decision like the gay marriage ruling can be decided by the opinion of a single justice. Rather, we tend to judge the executive and judicial branches idealistically, while taking a more realistic view of the legislative, with its necessarily messier and more transparent workings. In Congress, Fisher highlights these biases as he measures the record of the three branches in protecting individual rights--and finds that Congress, far more than the president or the Supreme Court, has defended the rights of blacks, women, children, Native Americans, and religious liberty.After reviewing the constitutional principles that apply to all three branches of government, Fisher conducts us through a history of struggles over individual rights, showing how the court has frequently failed at many critical junctures where Congress has acted to protect rights. He identifies changes in the balance of power over timea post-World War II transformation that has undermined the system of checks and balances the Framers designed to protect individuals in their aspiration for self-government. Without a strong, independent Congress, this book reminds us, our system would operate with two elected officers in the executive branch and none in the judiciary, a form of government best described as elitistand one no one would deem democratic.In light of the history that unfolds hereand in view of a Congress widely decried as dysfunctionalFisher proposes reforms that would strengthen not only the legislative branchs role in protecting individual rights under the Constitution, but also its standing in the democracy it serves.

This edition updates arguments throughout, critiques the presidential actions of William Clinton and George W. Bush, and challenges their dangerous expansion of executive power, covering: new military initiatives including the Use of Force Act, the Iraq Resolution of 2002 and George W. Bush's "preemption doctrine."

Chronicles the longstanding tension between protecting our constitutional rights and safeguarding national security, from the Whiskey Rebellion to the McCarthy hearings to George W Bush's ""War on Terror."" This book reminds readers of the political principles they need to rediscover to keep their nation free.

When a B-29 bomber exploded over Georgia in 1948, the victims' families were denied access to crucial information relating to the accident because the federal government claimed such access would endanger national security. When the Supreme Court upheld that claim in United States v Reynolds (1953), a new precedent was established.

Offers coverage of wartime extra-legal courts. Focusing on those periods when the Constitution and civil liberties have been most severely tested by threats to national security, Fisher critiques tribunals called during the presidencies of Washington, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Truman

It is often assumed that the judiciary - especially the Supreme Court - provides the best protection of religious freedom in the USA. Examining American history, Louis Fisher argues that Congress has more often been AT the forefront of establishing and protecting minority rights.

The culmination of four decades of research and service on behalf of Congress, Louis Fisher's latest work is a fitting capstone to a remarkable career as scholar and writer and presents his most articulate, passionate, and persuasive defense yet of Congress as an institution.

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Louis Fisher analyzes the case of eight Germans who landed in the USA in 1942 bent on sabotage. Caught before they could carry out their missions, they were hauled before a secret military tribunal and found guilty. Six of the men were put to death.

A classic on the separation of powers, this book dissects the crucial constitutional disputes between the executive and legislative branches from the Constitutional Convention to the present day. New material includes military tribunals and NSA eavesdropping, disputes over executive orders, state secrets privilege, and post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

An exploration of the relationship between the Supreme Court and Congress. It explores how the Court operates in relation to legislative action, as well as how it has defined the extent and limits of congressional power. It traces conflicts between branches over the power of judicial review and other key separation of powers issues.