pageok
pageok
pageok
Biden's Law Review Article on Constitutional War Powers:

Peter Spiro has an interesting post on a law review article Biden co-authored in 1988 on constitutional war powers. Here's the cite: Joseph R. Biden Jr. & John B. Ritch III, The War Power at Constitutional Impasse, 77 Geo. L.J. 367, 397-98 (1988).

Pete Freans (mail):
I'll make sure to cite-check it...
8.26.2008 11:32am
andy (mail) (www):
Which parts did he write, and which were plagiarized?
8.26.2008 11:38am
DCTenor1 (www):
SNAP!
8.26.2008 12:07pm
Sarcastro (www):
yeah, I didn't read the linked post either.
8.26.2008 12:10pm
mad the swine (mail):

One authority, clearly not inherent but which Congress might wish to provide [in the proposed bill], would empower the President to use force pursuant to a decision of the United Nations Security Council — as President Truman did in Korea, with the difference that Truman acted unilaterally, asserting an inherent authority. It seems inconceivable that Congress would wish to thwart the United States' participation in any multilateral use of force on which the Security Council could unanimously agree, particularly if the President had consulted with the congressional leadership before participating in the United Nations' decision. From the President's perspective, genuine consultation would be the essence of prudence, since an extended use of force would eventually require congressional approval. Such a pre-authorization to the President could, in an international emergency such as the Korean intervention, prove useful and would serve, by its very existence, as a symbol of American support for multilateral, consensus-based U.N. action.

A similar authority for multilateral action would empower the President to use force in cooperation with America's democratic allies under circumstances wherein military intervention could have decisive effect in protecting existing democratic institutions in a particular foreign country against a severe and immediate threat. As with the U.N.-related authority, built-in constraints on the President would derive from the need to act multilaterally and the eventual need to obtain congressional authorization for a sustained use of force


Forget Biden-as-plagiarist. It looks like John Yoo plagiarized from *him*, only snipping the 'authority, clearly not inherent" part :) It improves my opinion of Obama - slightly, very slightly - to see that he chose a VP who is, essentially, a foreign policy neoconservative (and remember that neoconservatism is, in origins and essence, a liberal movement) and who recognizes America's hegemonic role as global enforcer and liberator...
8.26.2008 12:14pm
Hoosier:
mad the swine:

The part you cite is a part that I find a bit odd. By 1988, it would have been clear that the Korea example was a dead letter. The Security Council cannot work quickly in immediate crisis situations, which are the sort of situation for which Congressional pre-authorization woul;d be needed, right?

It only worked in 1950 due to the Soviet boycott. Had Malik been there at the time, he would have vetoed Res's. 82 and 83.
8.26.2008 12:37pm
Anderson (mail):
empower the President to use force pursuant to a decision of the United Nations Security Council — as President Truman did in Korea, with the difference that Truman acted unilaterally, asserting an inherent authority

All this does is to ratify in advance the kind of decision Truman made, w/out conceding that Truman's precedent reflected any inherent power.

The 2d graf is very hazy, and the "constraint" of "need to obtain congressional authorization for a sustained use of force" is a non-constraint, as the Whigs found out during the Mexican War.

The "world government" spin is just silly. Biden's expressly saying that Congress should be considered necessary to ratify the Presidential power in question, and the decision is up to the President -- there's no issue of the U.S.'s being ordered by the Security Council to send troops to Slobovia and having no choice in the matter.
8.26.2008 12:38pm
with respect to yogi berra:
What's the odds that a sitting member of Congress had the time to write a law review?
8.26.2008 1:21pm
Cornellian (mail):
I'm guessing it's about 200 pages long.
8.26.2008 1:57pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):

2d graf is very hazy


Biden probably wrote that part at least. Hazy speaking/writing is his main skill.

Dis Neil Kinnock write any law review articles, btw?
8.26.2008 2:20pm
NickM (mail) (www):
"It seems inconceivable . . . ."

Paging Inigo Montoya. Paging Inigo Montoya.

Nick
8.27.2008 5:21am