The Letters Of Pacificus And Helvidius 1845 With The Letters Of Americanus A Facsimile Reproduction With And Introduction By Richard Loss

In Nurturing the Imperial Presidency, Brien Hallett asks, "Why have national war leaders always decided and declared war?" Because they have always controlled the drafting of the declaration of war. Ways to remove this control are explored; alternatives are proposed.

The official publication of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, this annual publication includes significant scholarly research reflecting the diverse interests of scholars from various backgrounds who use a variety of models, approaches, and methodologies. What unites the organization, and this annual publication, is its focus on politics and policies that advantage or disadvantage groups by reasons of race, ethnicity, sex, or other such factors. The research itself may be done in a variety of contexts and settings. This premier volume includes five feature articles and two special symposia. In addition, the publication includes bibliographical essays on politics and women, American Indians, Chicanos, and Blacks, as well as an assessment of recent books on Jesse Jackson.

This is the first encyclopedia that critically surveys the ethics of warmaking from a variety of perspectives. Noted experts raise basic questions about what is just in war, describe the views of historic and contemporary thinkers on ethical matters, survey practices at different periods, and discuss key issues. The over 250 entries arranged in alphabetical order cover efforts to curb the havoc of war from medieval to modern times, from accidental war to Zagreb Resolution, different religious perspectives, genocide, UN peacekeeping, and much more. Sources for further reading accompany the entries, and internal cross-references and an index make this major reference easily accessible for students and teachers in military, peace, and world affairs studies. This is the first encyclopedia that critically surveys the ethics of warmaking from a variety of perspectives. Historically, efforts to curb the havoc of war have confronted three military maxims: military necessity, the right of reprisal, and the obligation of soldiers to obey superior orders. The medieval efforts of just war theorists to protect the innocent, avoid needless havoc, and prohibit excessive weapons rarely affected military practice. Modern congresses have pointed out the inconsistency in concerns about war crimes or crimes against humanity and the weapons and strategies of modern war. The pressures of the military/industrial complex, the profits to be gained by war production, and the demands of sovereign nationalism contradict such alternative concerns as those raised by the United Nations and the International Red Cross. Noted experts raise basic questions about what is just in war, describe the views of historic and contemporary thinkers on ethical matters, survey practices at different periods, and discuss key issues. The over 250 entries arranged in alphabetical order cover efforts to curb the havoc of war from medieval to modern times, from accidental war to Zagreb Resolution, different religious perspectives, genocide, UN peacekeeping, and much more. Sources for further reading accompany the entries, and internal cross-references and an index make this major reference easily accessible to students and teachers in military, peace, and world affairs studies.

Intro -- Table of Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- 1. Our Chief Magistrate and His Powers -- 2. "Progress" and the Presidency -- 3. The Age of the Heroic Presidency -- 4. Hero Takes a Fall -- 5. Superman Returns -- 6. War President -- 7. Omnipotence and Impotence -- 8. Why the Worst Get on Top ... and Get Worse -- 9. Toward Normalcy -- Afterword: Our Continuing Cult of the Presidency -- Notes -- About the Author -- Cato Institute

Has the imperial presidency returned? "Well written and, while indispensable for college courses, should appeal beyond academic audiences to anyone interested in how well we govern ourselves. . . . I cannot help regarding it as a grand sequel for my own The Imperial Presidency." ---Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Has the imperial presidency returned? This question has been on the minds of many contemporary political observers, as recent American administrations have aimed to consolidate power. In The New Imperial Presidency, Andrew Rudalevige suggests that the congressional framework meant to advise and constrain presidential conduct since Watergate has slowly eroded. Rudalevige describes the evolution of executive power in our separated system of governance. He discusses the abuse of power that prompted what he calls the "resurgence regime" against the imperial presidency and inquires as to how and why---over the three decades that followed Watergate---presidents have regained their standing. Chief executives have always sought to interpret constitutional powers broadly. The ambitious president can choose from an array of strategies for pushing against congressional authority; finding scant resistance, he will attempt to expand executive control. Rudalevige's important and timely work reminds us that the freedoms secured by our system of checks and balances do not proceed automatically but depend on the exertions of public servants and the citizens they serve. His story confirms the importance of the "living Constitution," a tradition of historical experiences overlaying the text of the Constitution itself.

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.