War Powers: How the Imperial Presidency Hijacked the Constitution

by Peter Irons

Book Overview

An insightful analysis and a rousing history, War Powers examines a fundamental question in the development of the American empire: What constraints does the Constitution place on our territorial... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0805075933
• ISBN13: 9780805075939
• Release Date: August 2005
• Publisher: Metropolitan Books
• Length: 303 Pages
• Weight: 1.35 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.0" x 6.4" x 9.5"

Customer Reviews

How We Got An Emperor

WAR POWERS by Peter Irons is a history book addressing the authority to declare war. It starts with the Continental Congress and the positions of various delegates regarding executive powers. Mr. Irons provides some pertinent quotes such as this from page 34- "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department".-James Madison. An interesting aspect of his journey through presidential history is that some favorite presidents trespassed the Constitution on the issue of waging war and admitted doing so. Others like Wilson and Bush II viewed it far differently. Mr. Irons explains that over the course of American political history it wasn't only Congress abdicating it's Constitutional duty that was partially at fault. The Supreme Court during different eras deferred to the president or simply avoided the issue by labeling it a "political issue". He explains the correlation between corporate interests and the global network of military bases. The author quoted one phrase from Justice Davis' 1866 writing on the Milligan case that bears repeating in this review. It's even more important today that it was 140 + years ago. "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." -Justice David Davis. As a book on imperial presidential ambitions and history, this book is unbiased. It's a little dated (2005) but worth reading for understanding how war powers have been taken over by the executive branch and how the other two branches of government have reacted. This book also examines how the executive branch has infringed on individual rights of citizens and non-citizens alike. One prime example he cites is the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WWII.

Useful study of how the US state overrules the people

Peter Irons, a professor of political science at the University of California-San Diego, depicts the subversion of the American Constitution. Its Framers placed the power to declare war in the hands of Congress alone. But Presidents have usurped this power to serve the interests of the growing American empire, and Congress, Federal judges and generations of Americans have allowed this to happen. Presidents have asserted their right to use military force even against clear declarations by Congress. They have used John Locke's notion of the executive prerogative in foreign and military affairs to use military force without legislative sanction. They have tried to justify their military interventions by citing `vital interests' rooted in the demands of corporate and financial institutions for access to other nations' resources and markets. Irons surveys the Mexican War of 1846, the USA's first aggression for empire, the Civil War, the USA's 1898 war against Spain, which led to the effective control of Cuba and the acquisition of the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam. He looks at the US intervention in the First World War, citing the great liberal Woodrow Wilson's view of absolute presidential power over foreign policy, and he notes that Wilson's adviser Elihu Root said, "We must have no criticism now", not even allowing the usual right of futile protest. Then he examines the attacks on Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. When Truman committed US troops to war in Korea he violated the UN Charter by ordering military action before the Security Council called for assistance and he violated the UN Participation Act by not getting Congress to approve his action. Similarly, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson never tried to get Congressional approval for their growing intervention in Vietnam. Since 1945, no president has gone to Congress to seek a declaration of war, yet the US state has made wars in every decade and in every case there was enough time for Congress to debate and decide. In 2004, the American people, by a small majority, chose to delegate questions of war and peace to the commander-in-chief rather than to decide for themselves. The country must decide who is to be sovereign - the president or the people?

Who has the POWER to make WAR?

Political science professor (University of California - San Diego) Peter Irons poses to answer one question, "Why and how do we go to war?" "War Powers" is a clear and concise answer to the question that starts with exploring our country's humble beginnings, the framing of the U.S. Constitution (1787), to probing the background of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq (2003). The subtitle of Irons' book, "How The Imperial Presidency Hijacked The Constitution," is a precise foreshadowing of the book's contents. Irons' meticulous research, most notably the actions of presidents beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt and on, are powerful reminders of how presidents have overstepped their constitutional powers. The author stresses Congress has only declared five wars as Congress continued to abdicate its constitutional war power while the presidency became increasingly imperial. Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and both Bushs have all claimed an "inherent" right to initiate military action without prior congressional approval. "War Powers" is valuable for it shows how the U.S. rose to its current position as the sole supreme power. But more importantly, the treatise is a warning and a call to return war-making powers "to their constitutional home in Congress, as the Framers intended." Irons shines light on the erosion of our country's foundation, which often has been completely dismissed by presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt who stated, "The Constitution is just a piece of paper." Bohdan Kot

Good account of the evolution of Presidential Ceasarism

Mr. Irons presents a good history of the deterioration of our government's understanding of the war-making power, from the democratic mechanism enshrined in our Constitution by our Founding Fathers requiring Congressional authorization for war, to the dictatorial war-making powers claimed (and exercised) by modern day Presidents, and abetted by a supine Congress. There should be no dispute that the Founding Fathers intended that Congress should initiate war and the President should merely prosecute it, until the Congress decides to conclude hostilities. James Madison said, "...those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws". (pg 26) The Constitution spells out that intention with utter clarity, and it appears that the US government respected that provision until the Lincoln regime, when the old Constitutional order was finally overthrown, although technically Lincoln claimed he was suppressing a rebellion, rather than fighting a formal "war". Some may point to President Polk's instigation of the Mexican War as the point when this Constitutional balance was first challenged, but I would view Polk's military machinations as duplicitous, manipulative and certainly illegal, but not as a direct legal challenge to the war-declaring powers of Congress. A previous reviewer points to unilateral military actions on the part of Washington and Jefferson, but I'm not sure what he's referring to. In response to barbary piracy, Washington sent Congress a message saying that, "...it rests with Congress to decide between war, tribute and ransom as the means of re-establishing our Mediterranean commerce". (pg 30) Jefferson as well asked Congress in 1801 for_permission_to send warships to protect US ships from the Barbary pirates. (pg 42) Both Presidents made explicit declarations of Congressional supremacy in that regard. People may debate exactly when the Constitutional arrangement really started to fall apart, but I think it is pretty certain that it really first began to be challenged in the early 20th century, with Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, etc. leading to the obscene modern spectacle of a whole string of Presidents explicitly declaring that they alone have the power of unleashing war on any country in the world. It is almost unbelievable that there are men in a Democratic Republic, besides Ceasar-worshippers, dual loyalist war-mongers (neoconservatives) and arms dealers who would tolerate such an idea from an American Chief Executive, but such men exist in abundance today, in government, academia and opinion-shaping industries who not only tolerate such an idea but promote it for their own perverted ends. That's where I wish Mr. Irons would have expande