presidents, war, and *statutes*

[Mark Tushnet]

My view is that "empowered" is right -- that the exercise of the power 
is extra-legal (that is, neither legal nor illegal).  I say something 
about my idea (and contrast it with Oren Gross's ideas) in Defending 
Korematsu?. 2003 Wisconsin L.Rev. 273

RJLipkin at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/19/2005 2:34:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> tushnet at law.georgetown.edu writes:
>
>     if the Constitution were to be interpreted otherwise (erroneously,
>     according to the first position), he was empowered to act
>     extra-constitutionally.
>
>         "Empowered" or "authorized"? If the former, what normative 
> significance does "empowered" have? If the latter, authorized by what?
>  
> Bobby
>
> Robert Justin Lipkin
> Professor of Law
> Widener University School of Law
> Delaware

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051219/8a31d812/attachment.html